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.


Climate Change HOAX Exposed by Geologist to the UK Government

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 07:59 AM
a reply to: Rapha

Shouldn't you be on your Galactic Federation ship by now? You sure do have a track record of believing utter tripe.

This thread should be moved to HOAX, change the title to "Guy with massive invested interest in coal says we should use more coal, no evidence provided" and the sheeps just rolled in.

posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 12:14 PM
a reply to: SudoNim

The mental gymnastics are amazing. I bet all 29 people who flagged this think agw is all a big scam for money but then ignore a guy like this.

posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 01:34 PM
Plants need CO2.
Without CO2 we are all going to die, because plants will not be able to produce O2 (oxygen) for us to breath.

I hope we get CO2 levels up so we can grow more food for 7 billion people, because half of them are starving.
More CO2 means more food.

posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 01:47 PM
a reply to: FIFIGI

Awww, the old CO2 is plant food so more is better. Classic fallback argument from those who.are ignorant of the science.

posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 02:02 PM
a reply to: FIFIGI

Food production is in no way limited by CO2. It is limited by H20 and fertilizer and climate.

Increased night-time temperatures---a particular fact of greenhouse global warming---hurts a number of important crops.

Humans are no longer starving. Cheap carbs are giving them diabetes and cancer and obesity. More CO2 if anything means more cheap carbs, but not more nutrients.

posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 02:07 PM

originally posted by: pirhanna
Im reading both sides of this and im unconvinced either way, Governments are definitely laying out carbon taxes as a way to fund a new global government. So, you cant trust what they or their scuentusts say. Otoh, the global energy giants also have a vested interest to deny anything is going on, and that makes the scientists they fund lack credibility as well.

Ive looked over numerous data sets found on the web and have drawn the following conclusions...but im not a scientist. Overall, things have been getting a small bit warmer. There is more co2 in the air, but there have been periods of higher co2. The world began warming after the last little ice age, before industrialization, though warming has increased since then.

The world began warming and then peaked naturally at around 8000-6000 BC, and was slightly cooling since then. This was a natural cycle, as we are on the decline in the Milankovitch cycle which controls the Ice Ages.

Until modern period with fossil fuel use.

There is a correlation between temperature and co2 but temperature rise actual preceded co2 rise in the last 200 years. However, co2 may provide some feedback effect regarding temperature. It does not look to be a direct cause of warming but may be involved in some part of it.

The physics show it's a direct cause of warming now. Because solar influence is constant order declining.

Plants grow faster with more co2, and produce more oxygen. The earths climate is in a constant state of flux -- there is no such thing as not having climate change ever, in the history of earth.

There is such a thing as injecting massive amounts of greenhouse gases in a way which has never occurred in the geological history of the planet. Just because climate changed happened naturally before, doesn't mean it can't be really bad to support a technological civilization of 8 billion people, which has also never happened before in the past.

My conclusion? It would be best to switch off of fossil fuels but impending disaster is unlikely.

How about asking the scientists who work on this full time for their professional lives and have laws of physics and massive quantitative observational data sets to guide the decision, instead of personal feelings? Does anybody make predictions about semiconductor engineering based on gut feeling?

Im sure thats too nuanced in this age of youre either for something or against it. The problem is who can you trust. Everyone has a political position on this issue. I cant trust anyone that has a political position on this topic.

The problem is that following people who are scientists has been turned into a political position when it should be the universal moral and intelligent position.

Scientists and the scientific community may be wrong sometimes, but much less often than paid lobbyists or even clever but ignorant laymen, who don't even know how far behind the true depth of the science their understanding lies.

There is literally no endeavor in human civilization where the value of the layman is more totally useless compared to experts than physical science and research mathematics.
edit on 19-4-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 02:10 AM
a reply to: mbkennel

Extremely well put.

posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 01:23 PM
Yes, a very erudite reply mbkennel with which I full concur on all points

As an aside, a friend of mine is also a working geologist. And because of his knowledge of, for example, the PT extinction event, he is very concerned by the current rate of atmospheric CO2 increase.

posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 07:56 AM

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: tothetenthpower

Oh there is more...

The guy published that our sun is actually a meteorite that asbestos isn't harmful and predicted that Austrailia would be freezing cold one year instead they had their hottest year on record.

Kinda loony IMO.

Did you notice his sense of humor? The above mentioned seems on par

posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 08:09 AM
Many years will have to pass before we ave the answers to this... Humans contribute, but at a noticeable rate? I don't know about that... To many variables, to many unknowns, and to many knowns that contradict

posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 12:06 PM

originally posted by: GreenGunther
Many years will have to pass before we ave the answers to this... Humans contribute, but at a noticeable rate? I don't know about that... To many variables, to many unknowns, and to many knowns that contradict

Scientists have been looking at that very issue for literally many decades to a century. Your statement was probably accurate to the state of understanding in the 1940's or 1950's.

It is not so any more.

Humans contribute, and at a noticable rate, and the rate is quantifiable, and experimentally and observationally understood through decade long global observing programs on land, sea, air and space.

There are many variables and unknowns, but the most important ones are in fact known and dominate the global response, though the regional climatic outcomes are less predictively secure at this point. There are not many knowns that contradict one another, rather the overall picture is very clear.

posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 02:00 PM
Hey OP. Keep spending your life preaching this garbage while the rest of the Earth turns to crap all around you. That way, you'll never have to lift your finger, do your part, or take responsibility for yourself and the planet you are so lucky to be born upon. The rest of us are going to try to make this place less crappy.

posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 04:00 PM
So to summarize the original poster -- every scientist and government in the world has conspired to hide the truth from.. well everyone ... but have been exposed by a plucky mining geologist and small band his fossil fuel corporate friends.

posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 07:09 PM
Yes, the narcissism of the Exposer Of the Plot.

"Yes it was me, I figured it out against all odds---everybody else are just Sheeeple! Awake Sheeple!"
edit on 25-4-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-4-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in