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 Man-Made-Climate-Change-Lie

page: 9
48
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2019 @ 10:46 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Whats with this eating babies nonsense? Got a source for that crackpot claim?




posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 12:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Joecanada11

I assume this is about China.

China hosts one third of the human population of the planet, during the cultural revolution when Mao drove people from the land and caused mass starvation worse than any famine to survive many of them resorted to Cannibalism, some of them already practiced cannibalism as part of traditional Chinese remedies.

An artist outraged the world by eating what he claimed was a real human foetus in protest against other Chinese cannibalism that is claimed to still go on to this day in part's of china.

There are a great many tales told by Chinese whom have left China about this occurring but obviously other than some extremely disturbing images there is little actual empirical evidence so an element of propaganda may be involved or the cannibal's even if they have the participation of local party members may be complete outlaws acting outside of the knowledge of Beijing.

On a side note forced organ harvesting claim's have been made about the Muslim people's trapped in the cultural training centers, some of them have apparently been taken and had there organ's removed for the sake of rich Chinese and party members if so though not an act of consumption this is still an act of cannibalism.

Though there is plenty of unpleasant online material about this it is as I say dubious and also this is off subject so let's get this back to the climate change argument shall we.
Personally though I believe there is no smoke without fire so it undoubtedly does go on if not a national pastime and may god help and bless the poor victims' of the evil people that DO do this kind of thing.
edit on 27-11-2019 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 01:54 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

The idea that CO2 could cause global warming in any appreciable, measurable way is asinine

See the yellow sliver in this pie chart? (yeah, me neither) That's the amount of the atmosphere that is CO2. Show me any gaseous element that you could put that little of in the atmosphere and change the temperature appreciably. It's simply not possible it defies the laws physics. The CO2 molecules would have to capture/produce thousands of times the energy (heat) when compared to the other molecules in the atmosphere, and they don't.




posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 02:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: DBCowboy

The idea that CO2 could cause global warming in any appreciable, measurable way is asinine

See the yellow sliver in this pie chart? (yeah, me neither) That's the amount of the atmosphere that is CO2. Show me any gaseous element that you could put that little of in the atmosphere and change the temperature appreciably. It's simply not possible it defies the laws physics. The CO2 molecules would have to capture/produce thousands of times the energy (heat) when compared to the other molecules in the atmosphere, and they don't.



Because oxygen and nitrogen aren't green house gases and don't contribute (lack of atoms).



posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 02:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The planet is warming.

It doesn’t matter why, it’s too late to change.

A better question is, why is TPTB so intent on distracting us from making reasonable changes to increase the chances of our survival?


The planet has been slowly warming since we left the Pleistocene and entered the Holocene roughly 12,000 years ago, when the current ice age entered an interglacial period.

There is nothing to change and nothing to be done about it. It is a natural cycle that will last around 2.4 Million years, during which the interglacial periods will come and go and temperatures will fluctuate from hot to cold.

But as I said, some people will totally ignore science that conflicts with their feelings, so pointing it out is a useless gesture. :/
edit on 27-11-2019 by Ironclad1964 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 02:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ironclad1964

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The planet is warming.

It doesn’t matter why, it’s too late to change.

A better question is, why is TPTB so intent on distracting us from making reasonable changes to increase the chances of our survival?


The planet has been slowly warming since we left the Pleistocene and entered the Holocene roughly 12,000 years ago, when the current ice age entered an interglacial period.

There is nothing to change and nothing to be done about it. It is a natural cycle that will last around 2.4 Million years until the next major epoch arrives and the interglacial period ends.

Until then, the earths climate will continue to climb a few degrees and remain on the warmer side for the foreseeable future.

But as I said, some people will totally ignore science that conflicts with their feelings, so pointing it out is a useless gesture. :/


Yes some people will.



posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 02:37 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

do something they wouldn't normally do , you mean like give a # about the planet or anyone else on it



posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 03:30 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

Way to completely miss the point and be completely wrong. Bravo.

The point is, the physics of thermal transfer makes CO2 as a greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, basically useless.

Did you even think about the science behind what you're implying? What happens if you fill a translucent balloon with 90-100% CO2? How hot does the balloon get when compared to the ambient temperature outside? Why doesn't it get warmer?

If the logarithmic affect of CO2 as GHG were really aw big as they say it is, that balloon would be ~15C warmer than the temperature of the atmosphere around it.
edit on 27-11-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 03:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: ScepticScot

Way to completely miss the point and be completely wrong. Bravo.

The point is, the physics of thermal transfer makes CO2 as a greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, basically useless.

Did you even think about the science behind what you're implying? What happens if you fill a translucent balloon with 90-100% CO2? How hot does the balloon get when compared to the ambient temperature outside? Why doesn't it get warmer?


I am not implying anything. You are the one claiming the entirely accpeted physics of how CO2 warms the atmosphere is wrong.

If you are making the claim its up to you to provide the evidence.



posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 03:54 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot



You are the one claiming the entirely accpeted physics of how CO2 warms the atmosphere is wrong.


CO2 as a greenhouse gas is disproved time and time again in the now famous (thanks to bill nye faking his) glass jar experiments. I have done my own. Have you?

But here, let me go ahead and prove it mathematically:

Air has a specific heat at constant pressure of 1.01 J/g K.

CO2 has a specific heat at constant pressure of 0.844 J/g K.

Air has a thermal conductivity of 0.024 W/mK @ 25°C.

CO2 has a thermal conductivity of 0.0146 W/mK @ 25°C.

Air has an average molecular mass of 28.966 gmole.

CO2 has an average molecular mass of 44.01 gmole.

Based on these well established empirically measured results, and the relationship established by Avogadro, one expects that to increase the temperature of one mole of air by 1°C requires:-

Q = m x c x deltaT = 28.966 x 1.01 x 1°C = 29.25566 J.

For CO2 :-

Q = m x c x deltaT = 44.01 x 0.844 x 1°C = 37.14444 J

If the volume and pressure of the two jars is truly equal then the air has a mass of ~28.966 g per litre and CO2 ~44.01 g per litre.

Thus, unless the decades (centuries ?) of empirical measurement of physical and chemical properties are completely wrong, equal volumes of CO2 and air at the same pressure heat at different rates with CO2 requiring 37.14444/29.25566 = 127% more energy.

TMM;DR
CO2 contains more mass than "air" as such requires more energy to heat. If the entirety of earth is receiving the same amount of energy, the CO2 will lag behind in heating (insulating us from overheating). Conversely it will lag behind in cooling after the heat source has been removed (keeping us warmer than if it wasn't there). Why? Because it's an insulator not a radiator. Now circling back to heat transfer, 0.04% of our atmosphere is made up of CO2. Take 0.04% of a blanket and cover yourself. Apply a heat source. Document how long it takes for you to reach the maximum temperature provided by the heat source. Remove the heat source. Document how long after you remove the heat source, you stay warm. Compare without 0.04% of a blanket.
edit on 27-11-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 04:04 AM
link   
I remember back when it was called Global Warming. Then regions started getting cooler. Up here in NW Washington, ive been seeing shorter summer and longer winters. Snow where there typically isnt snow. Earlier than when there should be temps cold enough to snow. So now its “Climate Change”, rather than Global Warming. That name change in and of itself should make most people realize how much BS it is. The ones pushing an agenda will always change the narrative to push whatever they are peddling. And yes, just a simple name change, to me, i would consider consider changing the narrative especially when its the foundation of the entire idea. The world, for millions of years, has went through gradual changes. We know at one point it went to extreme colds. While there was life, so the earth was well formed and aged. Then it warmed up enough to melt the majority of that ice over some time. The global temperature fluctuates whether we are here or not. Some people might claim we’re speeding it up... but without proof. We will never know until we find temperature records dating back hundreds of millions of years. But back to my original point.. It started as “Oh look we’re making the earth too hot!!” And now “Oh look we’re making the earth too hot AND too cold at the same time!”

Next our carbon emissions and consumption of meat and all the other things that green new deal supporter type people don’t like will be affecting not only temps but gravity or some other ludicrous claim.



posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 04:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

If humans weren't about methane levels could go up because animals like cows with no natural predators in many parts of the world would be farting holes in the ozone layer left, right and centre but then the gaia would prob create an ocean flower that would heal the holes so it be fine.
That may sound like nonsense but there's truth in it.



posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 06:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: DBCowboy

If humankind is changing the climate, then humankind needs to unite and un-change the climate.

NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. (USA emits less than 15% of global gasses)


I am late to the party. Where did that number originate, it is important?

We have but to look at the pollutant Ozone and the Acid Rain Deposition studies to see America is doing the best with pollutants of all the industrial nations. We are doing so well with air pollution that if every other country matched the US then we would be able to see improvement in mankind's footprint.

The water pollution needs some major attention still and that is not changing the Earth's avg temp enough to measure in the micro verses macro changes any more than CO2. I say for now, lets keep electricity at carbon based until we approve replacements that work like Nuclear or Geothermal type projects.

I also like the solar array using parabolic mirrors focused on one spot to generate heat that can turn a steam turbine design. But the Sun is the limiting factor and that eliminates a lot of places to use this.

physics.stackexchange.com...


edit on 27-11-2019 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 06:18 AM
link   
so this scientific consensus on global warming is just bull# then ?

scientific consensus on global warming


posting this one for a bit of contrast

fact check on consensus

and this


Even though belief is clearly below 97%, support over 80% is strong consensus. Would a lower level of consensus convince anyone concerned about anthropogenic global warming to abandon their views and advocate unrestricted burning of fossil fuels? I think not. Even the 2016 Cook paper says “From a broader perspective, it doesn’t matter if the consensus number is 90% or 100%.”


It wouldnt matter if the consensus was 100% , we are still going to continue #ing the planet for profit regardless



posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 06:25 AM
link   
a reply to: sapien82

Some people will always cheat. The thing about all this is, do we punish innocent people for the a holes?

I like focusing on the a holes doing the real crimes like the polluters of the Earth who don't try to comply. And also those faking the data that the 97% lie originated. That to me an Environmental Scientist by trade, is a crime. And the Media are basically owned by the people who decide what we "know" or think we know who have NO morals or will stop at nothing to get their way. Right? They are not telling us very many facts of each story they tell us because of an agenda.

ETA

It is what they DON'T tell us that is the real issue we will have in the end. They don't tell us facts that would change the narrative. I keep saying the reason for the change we see is the dramatic Magnetic Pole shift cycle that just accelerated the last dozen years or so. Notice the massive Snows that are occurring in rare places worldwide and early freezes. The supposed world wide melting ice field could only be melting at 32 degreesF the cold air bringing those snows is in the negative degrees F.


edit on 27-11-2019 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 06:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

there is no doubt that the whole thing reeks of #e

and by that I mean another vehicle for governments and corporations to steal more of our hard earned wealth by blaming the end consumer for the environmental ills of the species.

We should direct our entire strength towards the main culprits and that is huge industry , which makes consumer products.

Yes , we each have personal responsibility to look after our homeworld, so yes it is important to each and every one of us to do our part. But the companies and governments should do their part.
But they wont , because they stand to make so much money from it.

the worst thing is Science will take a hit for those who are even the slightest bit skeptical , people start to distrust science because of the politics.

and we end up in witch hunts



posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 06:33 AM
link   
a reply to: sapien82

That has been my worst fear.

Phage would not see it that way and we have been at odds on this board from that point forward. I can prove my data while that tactic of spin is all that side has now.



posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Actions show intent over words. The actions of those who champion this issue show a further attempt to grab power over the lower classes, under the guise of saving the planet from ourselves.

Few walk the walk, many talk the talk. I agree taxes and limited liberty is not a solution to the described problems. I’m still waiting for true unbiased data on the climate and it’s changes.

a reply to: DBCowboy



posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I believe 100% that man has effected earths climate, and is responsible for untold amounts of damage done to the world.

That said, its pure evil to dump that onto the average person when you have a dozen or so organizations responsible for 70% of the problem on any given day.

I want clean water, clean air, all the nice things that come in a post victorian era. But ill be damned if im going to be taxed on my miniscule contribution to carbon. Hell, 80% of the oxygen in our atmosphere comes from phytoplankton....and we are being shamed about trees burning like its going to suffocate all of us.



posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 09:48 AM
link   
I'll tell you one way to fix it now

and that appears to be Biochar farming

start getting biochar in your garden, your neighbours garden, the local farmers market
everyone needs to start farming this way

its a easy solution to capture as much carbon as possible in a short amount of time

not only that , but you decontaminate land and water with it also.
and increases plant yield.

UK biochar research institute


Maybe Prince charles could encourage the queen to gift back some of her land in the UK and pay for us to plant millions of trees with biochar




top topics



 
48
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join