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 Denial, Anyone?

page: 7
37
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2016 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: cuckooold

Is there a reason you used a chart that only goes back to 1880, like somehow that was the start of climate or something ?

Here's one that goes back a wee bit longer, 2000 years. Still an insignificant period of time as far as earth climate goes. From it you can see we are nowhere near warmed up and that climate has been changing forever.





posted on May, 8 2016 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: bigyin

You got a source for that chart?

We didnt not have accurate temperature measurments until recent...like the 1880's and the temperature trend is tough to ignore; the CO2 spike is impossible to ignore, unless one wishes to remain ignorant.
edit on 8-5-2016 by jrod because: '



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: bigyin

Seriously where did you get that chart. And why is there information on Vikings arriving ?



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 04:46 PM
link   
It's not CO2...
It never was CO2...
It never will be CO2...

We do have a lot to answer for though, in terms of pollution.



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: gspat

If its not co2 then what it is? Where is your source? Please enlighten us on how our co2 emissions never have and never will cause issues with our planet.



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: gspat

Hot air, no substance is what you wrote. We have observed a sharp rise in CO2, no competent person can deny this.

This spike of CO2 is from our industrialization, burning fossil fuels for energy.



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 05:53 PM
link   
I left the Left Coast in 2006 to live in North Carolina, a Right Coast state, and each and every year the weather has been different. Flora and Fauna have changed each year as have the temperatures in both winter and summer. Waiting to see the rerun of a previous years weather, I'm beginning to think if their is a cyclical climate here, it has not manifest in those 10 years. Weather patterns have indeed changed here. It used to rain every three or four days, it has become more intermittent with less rain days especially in the last two years.

I see more blight in the forests around here, and it don't help that many landowners are clear cutting large areas of forest for pulpwood buyers. I suppose we are on par with the Amazon in loss of forest, perhaps a bit less, but still enough I imagine to affect weather patterns here. Certainly ocean pollution is affecting marine life and current patterns, with vast swaths of dead zones in the Gulf, then the addition of Fukashima. We only have to wait to see. It's inevitable that we will see changes..... whether cyclical or caused by human pollution, it will come our way. Civilization has reached a zenith with population and resources I believe, any more wilful mismanagement could well be catastrophic.

But man is transient in the scheme of life on earth, perhaps. The evidence of change is becoming apparent worldwide.



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

No I don't have a ref for it I just googles global temperature and it was there.

But here is another chart going back even further, like 150000 years with a reference

Paleoclimatic Data Before 2000 Years Ago



This chart backs up the other chart, plus it shows that about 10000 years ago temperatures were a lot lower and then the went right up. Man wasn't around then so we can't get blame for that although no doubt you'll try.



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigyin
a reply to: jrod

No I don't have a ref for it I just googles global temperature and it was there.

But here is another chart going back even further, like 150000 years with a reference

Paleoclimatic Data Before 2000 Years Ago



This chart backs up the other chart, plus it shows that about 10000 years ago temperatures were a lot lower and then the went right up. Man wasn't around then so we can't get blame for that although no doubt you'll try.

Maybe look at the next page?

It's linked on that page. Go have a look:
The "Medieval Warm Period"



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: bigyin

From the same source you used for your graph.



Paleoclimate for times before 2,000 years ago are also useful because they reveal the full extent of natural climate variability. These older records show that climate has changed abruptly in the past, and also reveal a remarkable correspondence between carbon dioxide change and temperature change during the Earth glacial cycles, described in the sections below.


Now tell me that our carbon dioxide emissions aren't affecting the earths temperature again.



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 10:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma

Exactly. The topic of this thread is that catastrophic climate change has begun to occur -- not what causes it or who if anyone is responsible.

But, as the Good Book says, 'the guilty flee when no man pursueth.'



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 04:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Joecanada11

I'm not here to debate what may or may not be causing the global temperature to be rising or indeed falling as some research suggests. The whole global warming / climate change agenda is not driven by scientists it is driven by politicians and big business. You can get a scientist to prove anything if you pay them enough.

I am interested to know why anyone talking about global temperatures would put up a chart that starts only 130 years ago.

What significance does figures from 130 years have on anything of this magnitude.

As we say in Scotland, I think I smell sh1te
edit on b51416515 by bigyin because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 05:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigyin
The whole global warming / climate change agenda is not driven by scientists it is driven by politicians and big business.


Maybe you could help me understand- what is the interest, for politicians and big business, in this debate?

That connection is what I haven't been able to grasp. I am not being snarky or sarcastic... I realize this exposes my extreme ignorance on the issue (because apparently I am the only one this site that doesn't already know this) but I'd like to become less ignorant on it.
Not saying I'll agree with the position, but I would at least like to understand what it is!

From my very limited position and view, this change in climate and the opinion that it is liable to get even more extreme, has only motivated people to move out of cities, to more remote areas, and for many to become "preppers"- growing and gathering their own food, becoming more autonomous for survival in terms of energy, and everything else. This seems completely contrary to what you'd think big corporations and politicians would want...?
What am I not seeing?
edit on 9-5-2016 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 05:58 AM
link   
a reply to: bigyin

So you don't want to address the actual science, data, nor observations; instead you offer some bat #e crazy conspiracy theory that all the world's scientists are conspiring to fulfill some global evil agenda in the name of climate change.

The sad thing is some folks actually believe this is the case.

Can you explain the sharp increase of CO2 levels we are observing?



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 06:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Joecanada11

That is a well known graph along with many other that shows higher temperatures during the medieval warm. Even the IPCC published those graphs before 2000.
The graphs they will show you now are 'reconstructions' of the earlier data that now shows it was colder during that period.
Although many scientists says the reconstruction was only done to hide the warming during the MWP showing a higher CWP.
That gave us the famous hockeystick graph.
It has been know from the beginning the graph had some serious flaws. The reconstruction was one of them together with the multiple use of different obtained temperature datasets, which is just unscientific.
During the MWP you could grow crops on Greenland and other places above the arctic circle, you see this happening today?

Strong believers of global warming are just the same as the deniers and not just the greeners against the oilers.
Global warming is nothing more than a political game that doesn't care for climate.
There is not one evidence that humans are the cause of global warming and climate change, the only thing you see is alarmism and not one positive story, it's a scare.

It seems like many people on here only read headlines and don't care about the real papers when those same people are saying the media is one corrupt system.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 07:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: bigyin

So you don't want to address the actual science, data, nor observations; instead you offer some bat #e crazy conspiracy theory that all the world's scientists are conspiring to fulfill some global evil agenda in the name of climate change.

The sad thing is some folks actually believe this is the case.

Can you explain the sharp increase of CO2 levels we are observing?

Show us the real data, I'll be glad to read the paper.

Can you explain the sharp increase in co2 or can any other scientist? When they all say something different how can there be a consensus?
Why is the temperature not following that sharp increase?



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 07:16 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 08:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: bigyin


Can you explain the sharp increase of CO2 levels we are observing?


No I'm not a scientist. How would I know where it comes from. Ask different people for an answer and you will get differnet answers.

All I go on is how the world looks to me and one thing which I've commented on ATS numerous times is that the sea level is not rising. Not where I am anyway. It's at exactly same level it's always been. Back in the 1960'/70', we were told sea level would rise significantly, several feet. It hasn't budged so that was made up clap trap from scientists.

Can you answer my very simple question. Why would anyone being serious about climate change use a a set of figures to demonstrate their point which goes back just 130 years ?

Surely you need to look a lot further back.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 09:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: bigyin

a reply to: bigyin

From the same source you used for your graph.



Paleoclimate for times before 2,000 years ago are also useful because they reveal the full extent of natural climate variability. These older records show that climate has changed abruptly in the past, and also reveal a remarkable correspondence between carbon dioxide change and temperature change during the Earth glacial cycles, described in the sections below.


Now tell me that our carbon dioxide emissions aren't affecting the earths temperature again.

Your quoted text says nothing there is. Please point out where it says "carbon dioxide emissions affects earths temperature".
It is possible there is some connection but i doubt that is the causation.

edit on 9-5-2016 by intergalactic fire because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma

Two current articles - this will help point you in the right direction. There's a lot more out there - too much to absorb all at once probably. The future (including the future of their own children, and their children's children) has been destroyed - for this:
Philippines investigates Shell and Exxon over climate change

A green campaign to make the company pay for climate change is besieging the oil industry and its conservative allies. Read more: www.politico.com...
edit on 5/9/2016 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
37
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join