Freedom_for_Sum as said above if you do a Google you will find a range of perspectives on topics and issues and theories. Try goggling flat earth or
Jihad, taking that approach you could find yourself agreeing with the authors of information like that, you could end up jumping of the edge of the
earth whilst blowing yourself up ! only kidding just to emphasise the importance of both knowing and trusting your source of information before
Recent events even today only highlight the danger of a wrong view or belief, in a more humorous though equally stupid way there are still people as
said above who are adamant that the Earth is Flat. They have no proof, They have seen the pictures like the rest of us of the Earth from space, but
they refuse to see the truth or reality in front of their very eyes. Its astounding really. Now there are obviously and thankfully for society very
very very few people who think this but they exist.
I therefore have not found it that surprising that due to the current governments link with oil, its leaders historical and current ties to the
industry, that a campaign of misinformation on global warming has succeeded in the USA, though the length of it and its absorption and acceptance by a
mainstream part of the population in the USA has surprised me. I think this is a good story but Global Warming has been proved (therefore no longer a
theory but scientific fact by measurement data and results and analysis....how can I put it THE DEBATE IS OVER)
Before these PROVEN AUTHENTICATED REPEATABLE MEASUREMENTS had all taken place nearly all the vast majority of specialists and scientists in this field
have believed nearly conclusively that global warming is a fact for around 5-10 yrs and a minority before that. Now you see this is where the
difference comes in, and I refer to my point in the beginning of my post, that you have to be sure about the sources of information you accept. So
lets have a look then at the people who you quote, the I dare say experts. in your own words lets have a quick look at
sources like these
thanks soo much for that above couldn’t have put it better myself due to the topic you are quoting them on. Two Authors and one Umbrella
organisation (charity us status) The Hudson institute.
Dennis T. Avery Director, Centre for Global Food Issues
Sounds impressive he has a science qualification too
Avery studied agricultural economics at Michigan State University and the University of Wisconsin
I didn’t know global warming had anything to do with Agricultural Economics? did you?
Hey maybe hes going to work out how to stop most people in the west and spreading, from eating a Big Mac a day....mmm hey he could be onto something
there.... stop the slashing and clearing of the rainforest (the very thing that absorbs the C02 that is ONE of the causes of Global warming) in South
America to make pastures for cattle who continuously fart out methane (indirect human link) before being minced up with lots of additives and Big Mac.
Hey if he used his actual expertise and knowledge on the areas he’s competent with, he could actually help slow down the effects of Global Warming.
But wait no he’s not, he’s actually taken the now draconian, secularised and minority view about Global warming within the Scientific Community.
I wonder why? well besides his links to the government his republican party membership lets look at a glimpse of his historical environmental views
and standpoints....mmm how about a book he wrote:
Saving the Planet with Pesticides and Plastic: The Environmental Triumph of High-Yield Farming (Hudson Institute, 1995).
(The Hudson Institute funded both the article you submitted as your evidence/reason for your viewpoint and im discussing and that book. It is a
charity/institute though it is mainly funded by agrochemical and oil companies and the republican party, so I wont even bother to mention more on the
sources publisher... nuff said...bias proved!)
Another article he wrote:
"What's Wrong with Global Warming?" was published in the August 1999 issue of Reader's Digest.
The books and article title Just about sums up his stand and politics then on environmental matters. He just sees resources and money, stated in his
very degree title, and his writings to date.
And there’s been me listening to and believing the climatologists, oceanographers, chemists, and biologists...silly me.
He’s worked for the government too, now here’s a surprise he received an intelligence (not clever/mensa/einstien type but a CIA/Spook type)
award, mmmm really his views impartial then from government policy on this?
So Are you seriously accepting this mans views? He doesn’t see, comprehend or understand the climatology behind it enough to make his remarks and
comments opposing nearly every other scientist with the necessary skills, knowledge and independent funding who have proven otherwise.
I feel ive showed that he is certainly not an expert in the field, has a proven and historic Bias on this subject and is paid for by the very
administration that has more links and personal benefits to be gained from the manufacture and sale of Oil based products than any government in
The other Hack who contributed to the article, well just that a hack, commentator, journalist...nothing wrong with that though why is someone who has
not even a 10 th of the knowledge needed to be known about this complex subject, before you can appose the views and results and findings of most
independent experts in this field is slightly humorous, if sad.
So the Publisher, and contributors to your evidence your amazing "sources like this" IMHO has been shown to be unreliable, unqualified, biased and
to be honest if you still believe in what they say I would be surprised.
However that is your choice and I respect it.
I advise you then if you decide that indeed yes, you still don’t believe in Global Warming and its implication or link to mankind and his
activities, that you provide some sources with recent data, from credible unbiased experts in this area to back up that claim and educate me and
others too ASAP!
Obviously if such a thing is indeed the case there must be a massive global conspiracy of all the climatologists, oceanographers etc to both falsify
data and measurements( but only by all the world experts outside of and not funded by the Government or Oil groups lol!).
In addition the hundreds of thousands of hours if not millions of pages and research and findings posted on this subject over the last twenty years
has all been faked.... Im just wondering what the final climatologists world coupe might be...
taxing the air or rain?...mmm the NWO in white coats…. Well anyone crazy enough to believe such a truly Mad Scientist Conspiracy Theory is way out
there with the fairies even by ATS conspiracy theory standards… Im just waiting for the post
‘Mad Scientists and Left Wing Liberal NWO Proven’
As this is ATSN it is important we know of such things ASAP... I eagerly await your information and sources so we can dig deeper into the truth of
Global warming... a Scientist conspiracy not a Scientific Fact!! who would have guessed eh? well they say always watch the geeky quiet ones eh.
So as said I believe that I have shown there are many problems in your supposition on the reality of GW(please see the links below) and sources. I
eagerly await as said new sources (which I will look at with the same rigor as this piece and its contributors and funders) on this so we can together
on ATS work out the truth behind the conspiracy. However until you can convince me otherwise I will now provide some sources myself, that show the
truth, who are experts and independent. I invite you too if you would like to check the validity and comment on them as I have with you.
Firstly and before I continue, the recent counter argument against the worlds scientist and experts, that ok yes maybe global warming is happening but
the links to Mans involvement are questionable. That also the earth naturally has periodic climatic changes of mean global temperature and also an
oscillating ice age cycle. In response because as said earlier the debate is over on this, it is plain for most people who look at the facts and
reality. but just to state some facts on this and not policy position as above, these facts are so basic that I wont even bother sourcing them, I
don’t know check any high school textbook in chemistry or the like. And I think ive mentioned this on ATS before,
Fact : When Hydrocarbons are combusted one of the pollutants liberated from that process includes Carbon Dioxide.
Fact: Increased levels of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere in the past have been shown to increase global mean temperatures, this is known to and
affect the climate. Its called Global Warming
Fact: Humans drive the cars or combust hydrocarbons in other ways.
I challenge you to disprove or present any evidence to the contrary of the three statements above. Until you can I state 'The premise that human
kind is not contributing to and creating global warming has been proven to be false, by the evidence currently available to the contrary'
Its politics and policy and stances not science, anyone who says differently.
Now of course then there’s the often cited theory that this is part of a natural cycle (the observed and authenticated proof of a rise in global
temp), the cycle between the Ice ages etc, well yes this is the first vaguely correct science the anti GW minority has cited, used. Yep these cycles
occur, however they take long periods of time and as their actual cause is supported with a few workable and possible theories it is impossible for
humankind to state with any confidence, that we are just contributing in a small way to an overall pattern.(relating specifically to the ice age cycle
here)...as the overall patterns mechanics and causes is still that just a theory not a fact.
Therefore logically until C02 and other Global Warming gases can be proven not to be the causes or contributors of these cycles again there is surely
Even in previous climatic cycles (not just ice age cycle) other Global Warming Gases were introduced into the atmosphere and indeed still are being
such as in methane from volcanoes, by natural processes. Weve studied and seen the effects on the environment when this has happened in a
massive/extreme way before.
In the past extinction level events have occurred due to climate change. Again I say why is there still debate on this, scientific fact and common
sense with the primal survival drive should have pushed this issue way past the debating stage, both in the scientific community and politically. We
know that we are causing/contributing to it, there is a not small possibility that the change in climate could be extreme. Where is or rather why the
debate? I just don’t get it to be honest.
Oh sorry forgot then about oil policitcs and $.
So as said the whole basis of the argument against GW and the dangers it poses, is flawed and not a sensible or even workable theory, with current
data. The complex, interdependent, fluid, oscillating, powerful and re-active nature of the earths climate is way too misunderstood to take chances
with or ignore. Just think about it, the climate is soo interrelated to each of us and is the small fragile bubble we live in on the surface of the
earth…I think a old Buddhist Koan sums it up perfectly.
A Zen master approaches his student who is in meditation in the monastery garden, a heavy thunderstorm is brewing. He gives his student a cup of tea
and sits opposite him silently. As the tea touches the lips of the student and he tastes it a raindrop lands in the cup, at that exact moment the
How does the cloud taste?
(sometimes translated as)
Can you see the cloud in your cup of tea?
Its so simple but so true. Think about it just once, next time you have a drink. Tea now, evaporated sweat and pee tomorrow, washing machine or toliet
next day, then stream, river, sea and then cloud again, Rain, river, water tap, cup of tea again....hey can you taste the cloud?
This is just one cycle among millions of different ones that are separate but connected. What im getting at here is that if we disrespect and pollute
the climate we do it to ourselves too. We don’t fully understand, can affect but not control the climate. An interesting point here, way back in
earths history even before the dinosaurs, primitive life on earth lived in a climate with miniscule amounts of oxygen. Infact Oxygen at that time in
the earths history was poisonous and toxic to the simple life on earth at the time. (In addition also once there was very little nitrogen in the
atmosphere (70%ish current) the gradual change to a more oxygen rich atmosphere (like our present 21%) due to natural processes and also by-products
of newer early life did indeed create a extinction level event (100%) for those types of original primitive life at that time. (source and urge you to
read James Lovelock's The GaiaTheory)
Its just like the well known political saying
One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter
Well truly it was and is the case that:
'one life’s poison is another mans breath'
quote me on that f you like....
The range and changes in the earths climate can be huge and extreme to put a mild point on it. The misunderstood causation as in small cause and large
effect observed situation in the climate, and feedback within the infinitesimally complicated and interrelated, atmospheric system IMHO leave no
margin for any complacency with Global Warming by Humanity, as both a species and part of nature.
So some facts (could post hundreds and recommend many many papers, studies and books, U2U me if you want some factual information)
Nasa Site Supporting Scientist Cosomo Artic and N.American Changes in Climate
How The American Adminstration Surpress and try and Control the Scientists
Recent Proven Data US Team discover link between emmisions and recent Global Sea
Temperature rises (clouds lol)
The fingerprints proving climate change and its observable effects in the N.America region...mmm
Nice indepth but understandable University site... you know professors and stuff, who
actually are experts in this area and not Oil tycoons or those on their books!
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change good Power Point presentation showing the data and
the list of likely if scary scenarios!
Indicators present in the atmosphere showing mans influence since the Industrial
Revolution IPCC (as above)
The New Scientist Magazine Special on Global Warming
funny enough after what ive said here and in previous posts about the debate/conjecture why is it still there... well I quote
Climate change is with us. A decade ago, it was conjecture. Now the future is unfolding before our eyes. Scientists see it in tree rings, ancient
coral and bubbles trapped in ice cores. These reveal that the world has not been as warm as it is now for a millennium or more. The three warmest
years on record have all occurred since 1998; 19 of the warmest 20 since 1980. And Earth has probably never warmed as fast as in the past 30 years - a
period when natural influences on global temperatures, such as solar cycles and volcanoes should have cooled us down!
I dont think anyone could ever question the peer review and reliability of the New Scientist on such things, or really for that matter with NASA
The Arctic is warming at an accelerating rate. Satellite data collected from 1981 to 2001 show that some regions are warming faster than 2.5 degrees
Celsius per decade
Short Simple but Powerfull Handout given out in Universities in the USA..so why the
However I close with a very fitting and to be honest slightly worrying, due to the time gone with C02 emmisions rising since it happened.
We the undersigned, senior members of the world's scientific community, hereby warn all humanity of what lies ahead. A great change in our
stewardship of the earth and the life on it is required, if vast human misery is to be avoided and our global home on this planet is not to be
~Exercpt from 'The Warning' written and spearheaded by UCS Chair Henry Kendall. Some 1,700 of the world's leading scientists, including the
majority of Nobel laureates in the sciences, issued this appeal in November 1992.
Sources Like These ok?