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.

 

Former President of Greenpeace Explains Why The Science of AGW is DOA

page: 1
18
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:
+4 more 
posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 11:26 PM
link   
This is an absolutely fascinating read and he boils it down to it's essentials. Here's a link. The guy is an ecologist and had to leave greenpeace when they began denying the benefits of chlorine. They called it the devil's chemical, despite it being the 11th most common element in the earths crust.

I'll summarize a few of the scientific reasons that AGW is garbage:

1) CO2 has had many inverse relationships with temperature in the past
2) Other times CO2 has lagged temperature (can't lead to warming if it follows warming)
3) 1/3 of all human CO2 emissions happened since 2000, but we've had little to no warming
4) At 150 ppm plants can no longer survive (we were 280 at the end of the little ice age, 400 now)
5) Temperatures were rising from 1700-1850, before the industrial revolution and CO2 being a human factor
6) Temperatures cooled from 1940-1970 while emissions grew rapidly
7) Observational evidence shows H2O to be a negative feedback mechanism, not a positive one, in the atmosphere
9) According to the IPCC in 2007, the models are not science:


“we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”


10) CO2 is a building block of carbon life (of which all life on this planet is), not a destroyer of it.
11) The optimum level of CO2 for plant growth is 5x the current atmospheric density (2,000ppm is optimum)
12) CSIRO has confirmed the increase of CO2 has helped plant growth immensely
13) Half of the CO2 created from fossil fuel use goes directly to plant biomass (we are saving the rainforests with fossil fuel use lol)
14) Temperatures were MUCH higher 500 million years ago, when the ancestors of all living things survived with no problem
15) Carbon in the atmosphere as been reduced by 90% over the last 150 million years, if this trend continues life will starve
16) The lowest ever CO2 recorded was 180ppm, which happened 18,000 years ago.

Basically, we were a couple million years away from life going extinct on this planet, until mankind began putting carbon back into the atmosphere. The ecosystem was doing exactly as it was supposed to do, following the second law of thermodynamics. We are literally saving the earth and all of the living things on it by putting CO2 back into the atmosphere.



edit on 26-2-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-2-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 11:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

I just watched an interview with this guy earlier this afternoon (I love it when coincidences like that happen) and found him really interesting. Looking forward to reading what he has to say. Thanks for the link



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 11:38 PM
link   
a reply to: riiver

It's an absolutely awesome lecture he gives. Flips the entire political nature of it on its head, using science and history.



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 11:43 PM
link   
CO2 is only one of the players in the climate change, the other players are chemistries that are disrupting the earth's ability to reuptake things properly and to detox the toxins. Carbon dioxide is not the major issue, the combination of the other problems humans create is way more of a problem. Greed and wants and desire for prestige and an easy life are killing the world.



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 11:46 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse



the other players are chemistries that are disrupting the earth's ability to reuptake things properly and to detox the toxins.


Care to expound?



Greed and wants and desire for prestige and an easy life are killing the world.


I don't disagree, necessarily, but how so?



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 11:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: rickymouse



the other players are chemistries that are disrupting the earth's ability to reuptake things properly and to detox the toxins.


Care to expound?



Greed and wants and desire for prestige and an easy life are killing the world.


I don't disagree, necessarily, but how so?


I feel like a parrot when I keep repeating all the stuff in these global warming threads over and over again. I always say about the same thing.

Go into the store and look at all the packaged products in the stores, especially the grocery stores. The plastic used for microwave ovens is a major issue, I used to like the aluminum on the pot pies and tv dinners, you could save them and get paid for the scrap value at the scrap yard, thiry cents a pound.

When you use your oven to cook a cake at home in the winter, the heat goes into the room, it heats the house. It is not wasted. Your furnace runs less. The heat lost by your fridge when it cools actually helps to heat your home in the winter too. Energy can not be destroyed, only changed, heat is produced when you cool.

Most of the energy efficiency ratings were invented to try to sell new products, most refrigerators lose their efficiency within a couple of years. It was a way of promoting sales. The old fridges they had back in the sixties that were not frost free, they were quiet and hardly ever ran. Even at today's energy costs, those old fridges would be half as expensive to run as the new energy efficient fridges. And they lasted for thirty years and could be recharged if they got week cheaply, not like the ones today.



posted on Feb, 27 2019 @ 12:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

CO2 is dangerous. It is widely accepted that 100% of all known serial killers have exhaled CO2.



+35 more 
posted on Feb, 27 2019 @ 12:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

I think he might be talking about heavy metals in the ground. If so, that is a direct result of technology, which is the saving grace of modern climatology according to modern climatology.

Looks like this guy has covered about all of the relevant points. I just hope you have your flame-proof jammies on when the usual suspects start talking about their 'science' god who doesn't follow the scientific method. I'm sure they'll be here soon enough.

One point... I'm not too sure about the statement that we were heading for the end of life in a few million years. The planet is pretty resilient, and all the carbon that was ever here is still here.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 27 2019 @ 12:08 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

We were, the carbon was taken from the atmosphere and used to create rocks, skeletons, and other such things. That's why the CO2 in the atmosphere has been slowly dwindling since the beginning of the earth. Once it gets down to 150PPM plants starve and once plants starve, everything else begins dying. So while that carbon would still exist, it would be in a form that life could not harvest it from. That is, until we started putting back into the atmosphere.

But who knows, maybe something else would have happened to get it back into the atmosphere.



posted on Feb, 27 2019 @ 12:10 AM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

Why is plastic so terrible?



posted on Feb, 27 2019 @ 12:11 AM
link   
a reply to: drewlander

Excellent point. 100% factual.



posted on Feb, 27 2019 @ 12:12 AM
link   
Is this the same guy that lied about being the founder of Green peace and also worked for strip mining and logging companies?

Is this the same guy who went on TV and said Roundup herbicide is safe to drink?
edit on 27-2-2019 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2019 @ 12:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi
Here's his wikipedia page

ETA: Do you have anything to say about his contentions or are you just going to stick with source ad-homs?

ETA2: Guess he didn't lie about founding greenpeace. Or maybe google is lying about it?

edit on 27-2-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2019 @ 12:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

I am no expert on GW or Climate change so there is not much I could add or detract to his findings.

I just find it suspicious when someone that works for the industries known for polluting and destroying the environment claims the very opposite of the scientific community when it comes to environmental issues.

I wouldn't drink roundup based on his word, would you?



posted on Feb, 27 2019 @ 12:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

No need to take his word for it, look at the survival rate of people who drink it to kill themselves. There was even a study done on it in the 90's where people ingested about a cup of it. Of the 93 people who did it, only 7 died. They ingested a mixture that was 41% concentration, the garden variety is 1%. So yes, you could ingest a quart with probably very few issues. But he never recommended doing it, he simply stated that fact. I would recommend against ingesting any such chemical.

He sees those industries you dislike in a different light. In the terms of the earth's geology and ecology, deforestation happens, habitats become uninhabitable, etc. Loggers replant and in a decade the forest has returned, what is a decade in the entire history of the earth?
edit on 27-2-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2019 @ 01:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

"Only 7 died," you say and you think it is probably safe. I wasn't expecting that people died I was thinking more along the lines of cancer that doesn't show up right away. Kinda makes me wonder what they were thinking when they drank it.

So sure, C02 is great we need more. Like you wrote 150 million years ago it was much higher. I do know there have been 2 mass extinctions since then but no big deal.



posted on Feb, 27 2019 @ 01:46 AM
link   
I mean, you have to be mighty dense not to see the climate swindle for what it is.

We went from just a few short years ago many people in the field coming forward and admitting their models were wrong to those people being shouted down by politicians saying we have 12 years to hand over all power over our lives to them or else we all die.

It is called a power grab. It is transparent. And it is pathetically disgusting. How a thinking brain can't wrap itself around that concept is troubling to say the least.

If we're talking about taking care of the environment, replacing what we consume, and pushing toward clean energy technologies -- I'm all in.

If we're talking about blindly handing power over to a bunch of control-obsessed plums then f--- off.

Environmental science and the political concept of climate change don't have anything to do with one another. Even the smartest people in the room when it comes to climate change don't even agree with the new illiberal left and their Great Fail Backwards. It is astonishing how illiterate people are on so many things in this world around them. Step 1 in getting better is to stop listening to politicians. It is literally in their job description to lie to you.



posted on Feb, 27 2019 @ 02:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite


We were, the carbon was taken from the atmosphere and used to create rocks, skeletons, and other such things.

Skeletons decay. All of the fossils we see are not bone, but rather fill from rock as the bones formed a mold and then decayed away. The result of that decay is both carbon monoxide/dioxide (depending on how much oxygen is present) or carboniferous rock (if no oxygen is present). Then tectonic forces act to turn that rock into magma, pour it out on the surface, and the carbon escapes as CO2.

You allude to that in you post; I just wanted to clarify that was what I was considering. Either way, we are nowhere near harming anything by releasing CO2 at present or expected future levels... for plant life, all that CO2 is a blessing!

TheRedneck


+16 more 
posted on Feb, 27 2019 @ 02:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi


I just find it suspicious when someone that works for the industries known for polluting and destroying the environment claims the very opposite of the scientific community when it comes to environmental issues.

That has become a very convenient excuse for ignoring scientific opinion. Everyone works for someone, and it appears this guy founded GreenPeace. It is more important to understand and scrutinize his opinions instead of trying to immediately discount him based on who he gets his paycheck from.


I wouldn't drink roundup based on his word, would you?

Neither would I. Even if it were 100% safe, I don't expect it would be very tasty or satisfying.

And as it turns out in other posts, apparently one cup of 41% concentration is only 92.4% safe... meaning 7.6% dangerous in an immediate sense. That's the rough equivalent of 2.5 gallons of it at home concentrations. I will say that he should never have made such a statement, but I will also say I know farmers who use and rely on RoundUp (commercial strength), and they have showed no ill effects after many years of regular use. I suspect the reports of its tendency to be hazardous are indeed overblown.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 27 2019 @ 02:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi


So sure, C02 is great we need more. Like you wrote 150 million years ago it was much higher. I do know there have been 2 mass extinctions since then but no big deal.

And you are claiming these mass extinctions were caused by CO2 levels?

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
18
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join