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.

 

The real hoax of climate change

page: 3
27
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2019 @ 09:41 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

I assume you are referring to the "green new deal"? What a joke. Excellent example of politicians that have grandiose ideas, with no real plan, or vision of the ramifications. Sound bites to sway those who don't question the effects of the policy.




posted on Mar, 10 2019 @ 10:23 PM
link   
a reply to: eletheia




Many years ago there was talk of getting rid of the sprays on products such as hairspray, deodrants, polish etc and go onto pump sprays, well that never happened


Actually, they banned Choloflurocarbon propellant gasses used to 'pressurize' the aerosol cans as the CFC's were destroying the ozone layer


OP, let me ask you this; "IF you knew an 'asteroid' was going to hit earth in ... idk, 2 mths, would you tell anyone?

I very much doubt those "in the know" would --- what for? How could it help?

p.s. but overall you're right e.g. the "carbon credits trading scheme" was exactly that, a Scham
edit on 10-3-2019 by JohnnyJetson because: psss



posted on Mar, 11 2019 @ 02:45 AM
link   
I think the real-er hoax of climate change is worrying about our carbon footprint, instead of worrying about the physical footprint, over-population, over-pollution... Over-popullution

I think that the faster we learn to give land back to nature and learn to live with it, instead of controlling it, the faster we will sort out the mess we've created. Just my opinion.



posted on Mar, 11 2019 @ 08:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mach2
a reply to: neoholographic

I assume you are referring to the "green new deal"? What a joke. Excellent example of politicians that have grandiose ideas, with no real plan, or vision of the ramifications. Sound bites to sway those who don't question the effects of the policy.


Yes it is a joke and the Hubris of corrupt Politicians to say give me most of your wealth and let me control your life and I can stop the apocalypse is disgusting. What's even worse is, many people fall for this and want Government to have total control over everyone's life.

How's the Government going to control cow farts, how many children you can have or how many hamburgers you eat without people just giving up total control to Government?

Climate Change fanaticism is the biggest threat to humanity out there. If this ever takes hold the carnage and control of humans would be devastating. You can kill billions of people in the name of saving the planet and you can claim to be compassionate while doing it.



posted on Mar, 11 2019 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Nice. Now only the poors defend the denial of climate change. Keep it up. The rich will survive, and you poors will suffer and die.



posted on Mar, 11 2019 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: schuyler


WHY did scientists feel the need to HIDE a trend line that suggested the OPPOSITE of what they wanted us all to believe?


No data was hidden. It was and always had been readily available.


I don't see this as an explanation at all. It was deliberately hiding the data. And yes, the tree ring data "went wonky," to use your scientific term, so how can they use it AT ALL? This is a good example of "science" being devious. They thought they could get away with it. They got caught. And so they went through convoluted explanations that you cited to "explain" why we should believe in their gods anyway. This is all documented quite well in the Climategate emails, which shows their intent very clearly. They SAID they would "HIDE THE DECLINE" and they DID. Now you're saying it's all legitimate. Why did they not be straight with it? Why did they not say, "The tree ring proxies went wonky," so we used them when they showed us an advantage and hid them when they did not."? That is effectively what they did. If they had not done that people would be saying, "Hey, what's that line going down there" and they would have had to explain that some of their data dd not support their conclusions. It HAD to be that the tree ring data "went wonky" It could not possibly be that the data did not support their conclusions. Its bad for the narrative.
edit on 3/11/2019 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2019 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: schuyler




It was deliberately hiding the data.
No. It was a matter of obtaining permission to publicly release some data which was propitiatory. It was also a matter of people not understanding what the "raw" data which CRU used was in the first place.



and yes, the tree ring data "went wonky," to use your scientific term, so how can they use it AT ALL
They used it because it fit well with observations.

Now, why did you post disinformation? Why do you claim that tree ring data from central England represents "global temperatures?" You didn't answer.
edit on 3/11/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2019 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

No, the data was not provided.

Phil Jones FOUGHT it.

"The world's source for global temperature record admits it's lost or destroyed all the original data that would allow a third party to construct a global temperature record. The destruction (or loss) of the data comes at a convenient time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia - permitting it to snub FoIA requests to see the data.

The CRU has refused to release the raw weather station data and its processing methods for inspection - except to hand-picked academics - for several years. Instead, it releases a processed version, in gridded form. NASA maintains its own (GISSTEMP), but the CRU Global Climate Dataset, is the most cited surface temperature record by the UN IPCC. So any errors in CRU cascade around the world, and become part of "the science".

Professor Phil Jones, the activist-scientist who maintains the data set, has cited various reasons for refusing to release the raw data. Most famously, Jones told an Australian climate scientist in 2004:

Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.
In 2007, in response to Freedom of Information Act requests, CRU initially said it didn't have to fulfil the requests because "Information accessible to applicant via other means Some information is publicly available on external websites".

Now it's citing confidentiality agreements with Denmark, Spain, Bahrain and our own Mystic Met Office. Others may exist, CRU says in a statement, but it might have lost them because it moved offices. Or they were made verbally, and nobody at CRU wrote them down.

As for the raw station data,

"We are not in a position to supply data for a particular country not covered by the example agreements referred to earlier, as we have never had sufficient resources to keep track of the exact source of each individual monthly value. Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data."
Canadian statistician and blogger Steve McIntyre, who has been asking for the data set for years, says he isn't impressed by the excuses. McIntyre obtained raw data when it was accidentally left on an FTP server last month. Since then, CRU has battened down the hatches, and purged its FTP directories lest any more raw data escapes and falls into the wrong hands.

McIntyre says he doesn't expect any significant surprises after analysing the raw data, but believes that reproducibility is a cornerstone of the scientific principle, and so raw data and methods should be disclosed."



posted on Mar, 11 2019 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Climate change could be avoided if people wore protection and stop adding even more to the population and the government acknowledged it as a serious global crisis rather than the growth to be encouraged (economy).

Switching out petroleum for electric engines is a real possibility in the future but human are breeding faster than industries can keep up. Electric vehicles might be making a difference but the real threat to the atmosphere is allowing so many jet planes to pass through it.

There are 1000's of possible solutions, in fact even more jobs that could be created to divert the problem but they want the world to end slowly rather than come up with a fix in time.

I don't enjoy summer, it's hard to deal with the idea that summer is going to increasingly get hotter.



posted on Mar, 12 2019 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jimjolnir
Over-popullution

I think that the faster we learn to give land back to nature and learn to live with it, instead of controlling it, the faster we will sort out the mess we've created. Just my opinion.

There is no problem with over population. It is just another myth perpetrated by the power mongers.



posted on Mar, 12 2019 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

They keep on trying to "scare people" into accepting their solutions which will include a draconian world socialist government controlling every aspect of people's lives.

The worse part is, it won't help at all and will make things worse since less people will be able to adapt to the changes that are coming, and which mankind is not the cause of.



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 01:46 AM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

I do think the size of the human population is a problem, but really what I was alluding to is that we've displaced far too much flora and fauna. As a really extreme analogy, humans could occupy the space of reserves whilst the animals roam free.
Not exactly
but still. It's just, humans for daaays, boet. Humans for daaays



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 08:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jimjolnir
Not exactly
but still. It's just, humans for daaays, boet. Humans for daaays

No clue what that is supposed to mean, but good on ya mate!



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 08:22 AM
link   
I can't rationalize the thought process of 'climate is changing but I refuse to believe its man-made, therefore lets all just let it happen and keep our fingers crossed humanity survives, rather than try and do anything to fix it' mindset.



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 08:45 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic



the rally cry was once Global Warming

then the shout was Climate Change

soon It may become Global Climate Variation


AI Gore is the guilty private party that excites the left to come up with ideas like Green New Deal... the actual reason for the attempted weather modification geoengineering is the ~12,000 year Sun cycle which is expected to fry-then-Ice Planet Earth before the next 30 years have passed...


both the Moon & Mars have given scientists the evidence of past Solar Events which have sometimes created catastrophes here on Earth...(that's the cause & reason for the creation of NASA and the agency space programs-of-discovery


Gore & the Elites, along with government 'continuity' are now & have been for decades---making caverns/bunkers/subterranean survival cities for escaping the Solar Kill Shot of heat/radiation/fused materials from space that will combine as a One-Two-Three Punch to the whole Solar System...



the truth is out there


edit on th31155248476813462019 by St Udio because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: neoholographic


This is the real hoax of climate change. If we just give most of our wealth and control of our lives to Governments they can change the climate. Why would anyone fall for such nonsense?

Nope. The real hoax is that people keep voting in people endorsed by and financed by corporate dollars, specifically coal and oil.

The government's role is to set standards and limits to CO2 output, and fine the crap out of violators. But when Kyoto was on the table and the 2000 election took place and Oilmen Bush and Cheney had the door open for Enron and such ilk to set energy policy, there was no way in hell that the U.S. would sign on to Kyoto.

What do we have now? Anti-regulation goons in key cabinet positions like EPA, Interior, Energy. So failing coal gets subsidies from the taxpayers so the CEOs and stockholders don't lose profits.

It would certainly be better if Corporate money and propaganda were banned from politics. Then maybe fossil fuel shills wouldn't get elected. Then the EPA, Energy, and Interior could put required limits in place and fine the hell out of violators.

Guess what? If fines were high your taxes could be lower. Yaaaa! Lower taxes! Tax the rich 1%. Maybe they would pay their employees better. Maybe the CEOs will take a salary cut and refuse bonuses to stay under $10,000,000 per year to stay out of a higher tax bracket. Win, win.


Oil and gas industry is quite powerful. Gas by now powers like 40% of all US electricity generation, more than any other source. People used to sail in wind powered wooden ships. Now all ships are diesel powered except a few nuclear powered aircraft carriers. People used to manually pull plows. Now people use diesel powered farm vehicles like tractors and combined harvesters. People used to ride in horse drawn carriages for transportation of people and goods. Now people drive gas and diesel powered cars and trucks and buses for transportation of people and goods. All jet planes are powered by kerosene. People used to use solar heaters to heat water. Now people burn gas to heat water. People burn gas for heating and cooking. People burn gas to make fertilizer, plastics, steel, carbon fiber, batteries, aluminum, cement, glass, whatever. It's pretty evident the oil and gas industry directly touches every facet of modern society. It is safe to say there is no modern society without oil and gas industry.


edit on 13-3-2019 by HaiTaiChen because: (no reason given)


(post by HaiTaiChen removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 03:56 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 15 2019 @ 07:46 AM
link   
Climate change or not , we all agree that government are finding ever more ways to tax us for something that is a result of their government and their inability to regulate industry!

Air pollution is a real thing so is environmental degradation, we will succumb to toxic rain , air and water
so will the animals and when they are gone we will suffer a great loneliness of spirit!

I wouldn't be surprised if the whole thing is to pollute the planet to tax us for breathable air and clean water
while they all live in fancy off world colonies in low earth orbit , and we work for generations to pay of global debt !

the arguement isn;t what if its real or not , the argument is , what are they going to do about it , apart from tax us ?
Taxing us isnt the answer ,its just a way to cash in on this generation and the next and next until we do something about them !
its the industry and CEOs who dont pay taxes and push money to government and lobby to bend legislation and give tax breaks to them!



posted on Mar, 15 2019 @ 08:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: sapien82
Climate change or not , we all agree that government are finding ever more ways to tax us for something that is a result of their government and their inability to regulate industry!

Air pollution is a real thing so is environmental degradation, we will succumb to toxic rain , air and water
so will the animals and when they are gone we will suffer a great loneliness of spirit!

I wouldn't be surprised if the whole thing is to pollute the planet to tax us for breathable air and clean water
while they all live in fancy off world colonies in low earth orbit , and we work for generations to pay of global debt !

the arguement isn;t what if its real or not , the argument is , what are they going to do about it , apart from tax us ?
Taxing us isnt the answer ,its just a way to cash in on this generation and the next and next until we do something about them !
its the industry and CEOs who dont pay taxes and push money to government and lobby to bend legislation and give tax breaks to them!


Economics of greed. So who's paying Greta Thunberg's family millions? The ones who want to destroy manufacturing in the west and ship manufacturing to China, India, Brazil, Russia, Mexico, Africa, Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe. That's all. It's all about economics and greed. That's all there is to it.

Only western countries will tax themselves to death with carbon tax. You can bet your house non western countries will never have carbon tax.




top topics



 
27
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join