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.
It's very arrogant thinking to believe that we humans have the ability to alter a natural cyclical process.
Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
It's very arrogant thinking to believe that we humans have the ability to alter a natural cyclical process. I think they'll find from these core samples that the world has previously experienced increases in CO2 levals/global warming. And if this becomes the case all these environmental tree huggin nut jobs lose their primary argument: live like we did in the dark ages to save the planet
Originally posted by woodsyboy
Actually its very arrogant thinking we havent, seeing though we pump Co2 into the air everyday, with the milllions of cars, factories, and aeroplanes...
Originally posted by woodsyboy
What dont people understand? Is it easier to say that its not our fault so we can get in our cars and not feel guilty? Or is it just hard to believe that humans, with their destructive tendancys, to destroy the very home they live on?
Originally posted by woodsyboy
I take it your not from new orleans?
Originally posted by soficrow
Yet we have purportedly educated people demanding proof of direct cause-and-effect relationships. That's PR, not science.
Originally posted by soficrow
Obviously, climate is dynamic complex system, and man-made CO2 emissions are a factor affecting the system.
Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Originally posted by soficrow
Yet we have purportedly educated people demanding proof of direct cause-and-effect relationships. That's PR, not science.
I'm not sure I'm following what you're saying.
Originally posted by soficrow
Read up a bit on complex systems. Then we can talk.
Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
No! The cycle changed direction on its own.
from a reputible scientific source that unequivically states man-made CO2 emissions ARE a factor.
Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
There is no evidence supporting the claim that our use of fossil fuels is reponsible for "global warming".
Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
This planet has been bombarded with extraterrestrial collisions causing destruction that far exceeds the damage mere mortal humans could ever produce. And the planet is still here! LOOK OUT!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!
Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
It's very arrogant thinking to believe that we humans have the ability to alter a natural cyclical process. I think they'll find from these core samples that the world has previously experienced increases in CO2 levals/global warming.
Originally posted by Nygdan
Good point, however, the problem is that the current trend doesn't 'fit' into any cycle.
Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
First the readings taken from 1959 to 2004 have only changed approximately 20% (from 315.98 ppmv to 377.38 ppmv) which I don't believe is very significant.
Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
What I feel is more telling about these readings is that the years 1997-1998 saw the most significant increase in ppmv of 2.87. However, if you look at the lower graph from the same website, you'll notice that CO2 emisions have been relatively level since approximately 1970 (the same year the EPA was established).
Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Rather than burning my SUV and my large expensive home hoping I'll change my lifestyle for the sake of the environment, why don't they go to school to learn ways to elliminate our dependence on foriegn sources of oil (read: the middle east)? Now that's something I would wrap my arms around; though, not for environmental reasons; but for political ones.
Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
which I don't believe is very significant.
And who's causing the contiuous rise in global CO2?
Regardless of who is causing the greatest emisions, 20% in the last 45 years hardly seems something to go "Chicken Little" about.
why don't they go to school to learn ways to elliminate our dependence on foriegn sources of oil
Originally posted by thermopolis
Can someone please explain the century without winter that hit europe arouns 900 to 1000AD that let the viking run amuk becuase they didn't need to gather food? This is when Greenland was in fact "green".
A time of long summers and very short winter if any.