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.

 

Global Warming- Fact or Myth?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 09:29 PM
link   
Tens of thousands of sea birds are dying in the Pacific Northwest because of ocean warming. The plankton is missing from the food chain and plankton is sensitive to water temperature. Even grey whales have been seen emaciated. It's a really sad situation.

www.comcast.net.../2006/02/01/317141.html




posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 08:11 AM
link   
Yes - *not denying anything* about ocean current warming and effect on ecosystems - I was just trying to get to of 100% effect, what percentage is man-made and what percentage is natural.

And I'm still none the wiser



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by TaupeDragon
Hello Essan

Thanks for taking the time to post - very interesting. *SO*, if you were made 'Enviroment Tsar', would your first priority be to cut CO2 emissions, or do you think there are other, more worthwhile things you could do for the enviroment?


I'm not convinced that CO2 emissions are the prime factor in climate change, and I'm certainly not convinced that any reduction we might possible manage will make a blind bit of difference (not withstanding which, I firmly believe that we should all make every effort to reduce our energy consumption, whether that means turning down the central heating, switching the TV off or walking to work).

I'm particularly concerned that we may be having an adverse effect on regional climates in other ways - particular changes in land use, both urbanisation and defforestation. Last year's Amazon drought may have been in part caused by the fact that so much of the rain forest has been cut down that there is no insuffient transpiration to maintain the rain cycle.

(Incidently, serious flash floods in the North York Moors in England last summer may have been made much worse because of changes to land use there... )

I also think that increased air travel may be playing a bigger role than is curently thought - I'd like to see more research into the impact of contrails and indeed in the release of pollutants (from jet engines) at high altitude.

It may just be coincidence, but global temperatures rose during the early part of the 20th century before levelling off or even dropping around the 50s and 60s. This is genually accepted as being entirely down to natural factors. Therefater it began rising again from the late 70s and has continued to do so ever since - this subsequent rise is attributed to human activity because models show that natural factors alone cannot explain it. The late 70s was when international air travel really took off as the 'ordinary people' began to be able to afford to fly abroad on a regular basis. The number of commercial flights per year continues to grow and grow....



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by TaupeDragon
Yes - *not denying anything* about ocean current warming and effect on ecosystems - I was just trying to get to of 100% effect, what percentage is man-made and what percentage is natural.

And I'm still none the wiser


I'm afraid that's the million dollar question - most arguments over climate change amongst scientists (and interested amateurs) revolves around this issue. Few deny it's happening, but no-one can yet agree on what the cause is. Part of the problem being that we still don't know all the factors involved. Therefore, any conclusion is only ever going to be a 'best guess' based on current knowledge, but could easily be changed completely when some new, unforeseen, data comes to light.

Do you assume we know all there is to know about the atmosphere, oceans, solar activity and Earth's orbit - and how they all interact to create our climate? Or do you assume that there's some important stuff we still haven't discovered and which may one day overturn long held paradigms about climate change?



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan


Do you assume we know all there is to know about the atmosphere, oceans, solar activity and Earth's orbit - and how they all interact to create our climate? Or do you assume that there's some important stuff we still haven't discovered and which may one day overturn long held paradigms about climate change?


Not at all - The more I have read about this in the past few days, the less I feel I understand, which is encouraging!


The media certainly in the UK has been presenting Global Warming as being an entirely man-made phenom - linked mainly to co2 emissions. Really it's been pretty much presented as more than the model/theory that it appears to be - a certainty, in fact.

I certainly I remember John Prescott being *very* smug over Kyoto, and, as I wrote previously, North American politicians that don't sign Kyoto are really treated as if they are lunatics.

I'm just wondering if the media could be slightly more balanced in it's coverage of the Global Warming/CO2 thing, because as far as I can make out, CO2 is one of only several factors involved in a complex cycle.

As you say - there are *other* enviromental issues that we *know* man has a direct effect on, such as deforestation, over-fishing, excessive use of fertiliser, water pollution, ozone layer (continue to infinity.....)

Maybe our politicians should start concentrating on these issues, rather than trying to regulate a cycle they have no real control over?

TD



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 02:21 AM
link   
Im going to have to say that I dont need scientist or any thing to decide for myself all I have to do is walk out side. For years we have been witnessing a trend of dramatic change. Look at the number frequency and intensity in hurricanes for example. I am willing to bet that this year there will be more and worse. This indicates a trend. Also there are the many different areas experiencing warmer winters. Again, this has been a trend of getting worse. Then you add the human equation. Car pollutants, methane build up from cattle, miles upon miles of polluted water supplies again from things like cattle, air and water pollution from industry. We keep making more people so we produce more stuff that creates more pollution. This has to be influeincing the climate I just cant believe that it dosnt.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by SoLaR513
Im going to have to say that I dont need scientist or any thing to decide for myself all I have to do is walk out side. For years we have been witnessing a trend of dramatic change. Look at the number frequency and intensity in hurricanes for example. I am willing to bet that this year there will be more and worse. This indicates a trend. Also there are the many different areas experiencing warmer winters. Again, this has been a trend of getting worse. Then you add the human equation. Car pollutants, methane build up from cattle, miles upon miles of polluted water supplies again from things like cattle, air and water pollution from industry. We keep making more people so we produce more stuff that creates more pollution. This has to be influeincing the climate I just cant believe that it dosnt.


Yeah, but how long will one of us be around for to monitor the weather? 80 years or so? That's *nothing* in geological time. We're been keeping meteorological charts for what, 300 years maybe? Again, nothing much in the long run. How do we *know* the warming of the planet isn't natural?

To put it another way, can you explain the little Ice Age in the 17th-18th century?

The earth gets hotter and colder. CO2 levels went up and down before we arrived and will probably do the same long after we are extinct - even if they do cause global warming, rather than just follow it.

The Sun will get more or less active over time and the earth will get warmer and colder.

I'm not saying we can't screw the planet up in a myriad of other ways, but are we flattering ourselves if we can make the planet hotter or colder by our own efforts?

TD



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by SoLaR513
For years we have been witnessing a trend of dramatic change. Look at the number frequency and intensity in hurricanes for example. I am willing to bet that this year there will be more and worse.


I doubt it'll be much less that last year, anyway.

But that's nothing to do with global warming, simply the fact that we're at the peak of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and there is no El Nino (which generates atmospheric conditions that make hurricanes less likely to develop)

In 10 years there'll be a noiticeable drop in the number of hurricanes as the AMO moves into it's cool phase once more.



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 05:06 PM
link   
This is a la nina year which means the hurricanes will be worse. As for the co2 thing we keep making more people which equals more stuff produced which equals more pollution. Ok so the earht will survive but we sure can make it hard for us to.



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 12:38 AM
link   
I live in Ottawa, Canada.
Personally, I can't even imagine how it could be possible for anyone who doesn't live under a rock to deny the fact that our climate is getting warmer. (Even then, the ground is thawing, causing thick fogs some colder nights)
It is now February, and IT'S POURING RAIN HERE
There are toads crossing roads here that had hibernated in ditches that are now melted and filled with water.


A few have already mentioned how deforestation is having an impact on climate change, and I agree.

Now, It's funny, how people have fears about the rising levels of CO2, (and we've been hearing much more about it in both national and local media sources), and yet we haven't stopped the deforestation of our forests.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are we not cutting down MORE trees now, and in the next fews years?

What is it that trees, and all other plant life "breathe"? CO2.
Second to energy reduction, we need to find a substitute for lumber.
Like- hemp, for example.



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 01:33 AM
link   
Cost Versus Benefit


Originally posted by TaupeDragon
I'm really not sure who will profit - I can't see any reason for anyone making this up. It would cost a fortune for governments and industry to change their polluting ways, and probably cost a lot of jobs (just look at the Canadians and Kyoto - isn't Harper going to withdraw?)

The key to understanding global warming politics is to remember that the "fortune" you referred to as a "cost" for governments equals income for the businesses to which it's paid.

Money spent to convert industries "to prevent global warming" gets paid to the companies who will perform the conversions.

It should therefore come as no surprise that companies which would profit from global warming legislation support it enthusiastically, mainly through "environmental activists" and other front groups.

Always follow the money.



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 03:14 AM
link   
Majic, I applaud you for your valiant efforts to stifle vigourous debates in this area. I always find it funny that you say "follow the money" yet never do so yourself


Is it Laziness? Are you afraid of being fired? Afraid of people learning you're true motives?

Whatever it is most people on here who are skeptical of Global Warming and the Adverse effects of Pollution in general are usually employed in the industries that would be effected by increased power to Environmentalists.(some have even admitted it too)

Whatever the reason you quite obviously have an agenda to push which is why you always pull these distraction tactics.


Call me when you actually do some research in the area in question, and following the money only tells you part of the story not the whole story. Of course if you follow the money on the other side of the coin which you never seem to ask people to do you'll find lots of Cronyism, Distraction Tactics,Propoganda and Bribery while my health continues to degrade. So yeah I got a personal stake in this. Do you? My suspicion is yes you do.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here is a thread by Umbrax that seeks to do just that
NO need for people to duplicate efforts in what is IMO a moot issue in most of the world EXCEPT the "great" US of A.

There is a war of meme's going on in this arena, I let my lungs do the thinking for me
So while you go and tell people to "follow the money" I'm quite literally dying wether it's from my "medication" or smog I highly doubt I will live to see retirement.

I'm sure if things keep the going the way they are going I won't be able to go outside without a breathing aparatus in a decade. GOOD WORK!

FYI Been an Asthmatic since I was 5. The most likely culprit is the Highway not a quater mile from my house.

Why not put your obvious "skills" in dissecting disinfo on the most McCarthiest US government in decades. Oh yeah I forgot you voted for them so we can't have that now can we


/rant



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 04:15 AM
link   
Straight From The Source


Originally posted by sardion2000
Afraid of people learning you're true motives?

While I love it when people talk about me, I'm not the topic of this thread. There's another thread just for that.

But while we're on the subject of me, I'll say that I think it's important to avoid making false assumptions about what I do, what my motives are and what I know.

I study a lot of things, some more in-depth than others. People that actually know something about me can appreciate that I may not have the time it takes to try to dig through layer upon layer of often-private financial disclosures, charitable grants, consultancy contracts, board memberships, blind trusts and donor lists.

Some people have the time and resources to do that. I don't. To those that do, I recommend doing so and seeing where it leads – on both sides of the issue.

Funny how pointing out that there are actually at least two sides to the issue of money in global warming results in such suspicion and animosity. Well actually, it's not so funny.


The principle at work here is that companies seek to make money. Argue against that if you wish, but I don't see the point in promoting a position that's inherently false.

Certain companies oppose global warming legislation because they don't stand to profit from it, and they use all sorts of tactics to oppose it – including junk science. That gets an absurd amount of airplay in the propaganda pipelines, and I'm not concerned that people aren't hearing about it.

What usually gets overlooked is that other companies stand to profit from global warming legislation, and they use all sorts of tactics to support it – including junk science. That FACT is not only conveniently overlooked but actively suppressed -- to the point that those who mention it are often unfairly maligned.

Imagine that.


Pointing Out The Obvious

That's the reason I keep mentioning it: because people seem to keep forgetting it.

Forgetting it plays into the hands of the Evil Multinationals who don't want us to know they stand to make trillions off global warming without even having to prove that the money will do anything to help the environment, so I figure I'm doing folks a favor by pointing it out.

I also want to make it clear that while I'm suspicious of propaganda efforts designed to instill fear, uncertainty and doubt regarding the issue of global warming theory, I don't consider the scientific issues of global warming to be resolved.

For those who resent my reminders about these facts, feel free to ignore them and believe what you want, but I ask that you kindly refrain from impugning my motives without knowing what the bloody hell you're talking about.

Believe it or not, I really don't want my children or grandchildren to have to live in a world devastated by global warming if it turns out all this hype is true. I also don't want to enslave them with crushing debt in exchange for nothing but hysteria.

Just because I am skeptical of the players in the global warming scare doesn't mean I'm convinced one way or the other about what's going on with the global climate. I consider them separate issues.

Here, I am commenting on the money. Money is involved. Look at the post I responded to. Money is at the heart of global warming politics and slinging mud at me for saying so doesn't change that.

You don't need to dig through a bunch of shady front companies and anonymous grants to figure out that all that money global warming activists are demanding to be spent will end up in someone's pockets.

There is a profit motive behind the “movement”, whether people choose to realize it or not.

That's my point.

Expert Opinion

As I'm sure my fellow members can attest, I am more than capable of expressing my opinions without the need for someone else to speak for me -- and misrepresent my opinions at that.

sardion2000, I respect your position on the issue of global warming and agree with you on more than you may realize, but if posting this sort of garbage about me is what you have to bring to the discussion, I'm not interested.
:shk:



posted on Feb, 5 2006 @ 05:11 AM
link   
So, Fact Or Myth?

All that said, some folks may still wonder why I'm such a skeptic about Global Warming.

I have various reasons. One of them, and by no means the only one, is because I remember the Global Cooling scare.

Yeah, I was alive back then, in the 1970's when dinosaurs ruled the earth, and this was big news in those days.

For fun, see if you can find out how many “big name players” there were in the Global Cooling scare that subsequently became associated with Global Warming scare.

As I have repeatedly and emphatically made clear time and time again, I don't know what the truth is about Global Warming itself, whether it is really occurring and if so, how much is due to human activity.

However, I do know that much of what is taking place in the interest of “promoting awareness of Global Warming” is really nothing more than mass hysteria.

The symptoms abound in the debate, and their effects may even be found right here on ATS, to the detriment of us all.

All I'm asking is that we be skeptical of those who would deceive us and be open to the truth, whatever it may be.

While there is much I don't know, I suspect the truth in the issue of Global Warming is more a matter of degree than absolute black or white, faith or dismissal, religion or atheism.

Perhaps those who care for the truth can see their way clear to avoid polarizing the discussion and attempting to silence differing points of view.

Who knows? Maybe if we do that, we might actually uncover some truth in the process.

Now if you'll excuse me, I've got the tail end of a hoax to go ponder.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Sardion2000 I poked my head in here out of curiosity, you question others, here's some food for thought for you.

You mention that you're asmatic (that u grew up next to a highway).

I also grew up next to a highway, next to a farm (using now banned Insecticides), worked on a farm in my formative years (exposure to extreme, dust conditions, diesel exhaust, and exposure to all kinds of mildew, fungus et al) smoked since I was 10.

Yet I have none of the symtoms of respratory distress.
Could it be you genetic make up?

I have also live by power lines, worked up north being irradiated by both low and High level electomagnetic radiation.

My kids are both extremely healthy and smart, I might add they being honour students, having seldom missed a day of school or work.

My suggestion is you look inside not outside for things to blame, maybe it is the medical efficiency to blame allowing the weak to survive. (another theory)

That leads me to the warming controversy.

I worked in weather observation/aviation briefing for over 30 years, that only means that I monitored air quality while up north through various events like major erruptions, Solviet satellite burning up in the atmosphere and other concerns.

What I do know is that research takes money, if "YOU" can intimidate the powers that be to loosen the purse strings in your direction by popularizing a therory real or immagined that the earth is threatened by global warming you can bet "THAT MONEY" will flow to you and your friends(research assitants).
More by further perpetuating the idea to get more money by publishing statistics, to support continued research requiring more of "THAT MONEY" giving you an extended career and establishing you as an expert, meaning that you live on government support for your existing life.

See where I am coming from?

Have you ever been in a barn in the dead of winter? Where an absence of heating equipment still requires exhaust fans to remove excessive heat? Even though there are only 60 head of cow in the barn.

Does that come from global warming? - NO it comes from the cows.

Think about it for a moment living mamals produce heat that is in excess of their requirements.

Now, how fast is the earth's population growing, (medical efficiency?) how about the extra animals that are grown to feed those extra humans, last but not least, how about the decay of the manure produced in raising the growing of those ever increasing numbers of animals. HINT - heat from decomposition and the increased production methane available to the atmosphere.

Yet there is still more going on.

As a small race in the grand scheme of things are we so self-centred and illusioned that we actually believe we control/contribute to anything in a major way?

All you have to do in the north is to go over a ridge, descent in to a small depression look up and around - nothing is what you see, no sign of human activity no power lines no buildings nothing. It's then one realises how small you can feel when the world revolves around you, and one thinks hmmmm... I guess I'm not the center of the universe after all.

One last point when was the last time you heard of the hole in the ozone layer. Is it still there? has it filled in? or have those people gotten enough of "THE MONEY" to be set up for live and they don't require further funding?

I'm with the other guy Follow "THE MONEY".

Just a couple of points to ponder, I myself am more concerned about the deforestation of the Amazon, probably by the drug lords, so they have more land to plant their poision on, but even that points to following "THE MONEY".

Strange how an idea or question pops up and you find yourself in the circular argument that leads to the conclusion: MONEY.

The conclusion is almost inescapable.

ROTFLMAO cause if I wasn't I'd be crying.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Yup.

The more I read about this, the more I wonder the basis of the science. Like most people, I kind of believe what the media tells me, and it irritates me a little the BBC could not at least say 'Global Warming is a Consensus Position'. Rather than present it as total fact.

And I have nothing to do with any CO2 producing industry.


Majic - I *do* remember 'Tomorrow's World' talking about 'Global Cooling' in the late 70s! Well remembered!

This is not to say I don't believe we are destroying the planet in plenty other ways - but the more I think about it, the more I think we should direct our efforts in other areas before worrying *so* much about CO2.

TD



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by TaupeDragon
Hello

Headline on the BBC today is concerning the 'fact' that we are reaching a tipping point wrt co2 emissions and that we risk serious/catastrophic climate changes as a result.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Look around on the web and you'll see apparently rational and qualified scientists who strongly disagree with the climate change theory.

www.friendsofscience.org...

Who's right here? Do you go with the consensus, or do you agree with the dissenters?

I'm still not clear why there have been significant changes in the ice caps over millions of years, and large fluctuations in co2 levels apparently *after* global warming happened.

Confused? I am.

TD




The science behind the computer models are exceptionally sound and have proven to be remarkably accurate. Global warming is real. Its because of human activity. Its not going to change. We in the US are the largest contributor and we arent going to be able to act in time. China, India, and Europe arent going to do enough about it in time. We are all doomed! Doomed! Well, maybe not all of us but certainly many will suffer directly from global warming. The fact is, we already suffer from economic consequences due to global warming and other enviromental degradation from human activity, such as filling in swamps, and this will increase significantly over the next decades. Hope you are saving your $$ but hopefully not by investing in a florida vacation home.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 02:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by orca71

The science behind the computer models are exceptionally sound and have proven to be remarkably accurate. Global warming is real. Its because of human activity. Its not going to change. We are all doomed! Doomed! Well, maybe not all of us but certainly many will suffer directly from global warming.

The popular thing to do these days is deny blame, shift responsibility, and claim ignorance. In the Pacific Northwest, there was an article in the news that blamed the mackerel for our ailing salmon populations. Those darn mackerel were eating them. Of course, the fact that people have built cities on top of their spawning grounds was not noted. In the early 80's I saw a model that predicted this area would get an increase in rainfall. We have since then set new annual rainfall records three times. The local lake that I once drove my car on has not come close to freezing in a decade. It used to be an annual event, and the year I drove on it, the ice was over a foot thick. If scientists want to try to prove that we aren't to blame, that's fine, but I don't buy it. Bart Simpson is truly the spokesperson of this generation. I didn't do it.


E_T

posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan


However, I understand that isotopic studies of the atmosphere have shown that CO2 amounts equal to the recent rise have been found to have originated from the burning of fossil fuels.... So there doesn't seem to be much question that the current increase in CO2 levels is down to us.
Timing of distant recordings is hard so only sure thing which can be said surely is that climate changes and CO2 concentration changes are tied together very closely.
Also actually warming can increase rise of CO2 amount, when water warms it can't "store" so much gases so oceans could well start to release absorbed carbon dioxide when water temperature starts to rise.


That graph lacks how CO2 concentration started increasing at the time of industrial revolution, and how it's now over 370 ppmv which is nearly 100ppmv higher than highest values measured from ice cores, covering ~400 000 years including many ice ages and their warm periods!


Originally posted by Essan
I also think that increased air travel may be playing a bigger role than is curently thought - I'd like to see more research into the impact of contrails and indeed in the release of pollutants (from jet engines) at high altitude.
You have that proof in grounding of air traffic after WTC.
Temperature in all stations (thousands) around US jumped (and difference to night temperatures increased) immediately when air traffic ceased, and when air traffic and contrails returned anomaly disappeared.



It may just be coincidence, but global temperatures rose during the early part of the 20th century before levelling off or even dropping around the 50s and 60s. This is genually accepted as being entirely down to natural factors. Therefater it began rising again from the late 70s and has continued to do so ever since - this subsequent rise is attributed to human activity because models show that natural factors alone cannot explain it. The late 70s was when international air travel really took off as the 'ordinary people' began to be able to afford to fly abroad on a regular basis.
Actually time around world wars and after saw huge growth of heavy "smoke pipe industry" which surely caused dramatic increase of nitrogen/sulfur particle emissions which besides acid rains cause also diseases.
And putting those emissions really under control started only few decades ago while CO2 emissions increased more than ever so that could well explain temporary drop of temperature until amount of particle emissions dropped compared to CO2 emissions. (which were just increasingly growing)



www.badastronomy.com...

Dr. Jim Hansen, a top NASA scientist, had interview requests about his work with global warming denied by a NASA public affairs officer by the name of George Deutsch. While Deutsch works for NASA, he is actually a presidential appointee who worked for President Bush and Vice President Cheney during the 2004 elections.

Got this so far? Deutsch had this position as NASA public relations specialist given to him by the current administration, and according to Dr. Hansen he used it to suppress information about global warming. This issue was important enough to NASA officials that Mike Griffin, NASA’s Administrator, sent an email on Friday, Feb. 3 to all NASA employees (and which is now posted on the NASA website) saying that "It is not the job of public-affairs officers to alter, filter or adjust engineering or scientific material produced by NASA’s technical staff."


So when you follow that money it's clear that only myth is honesty of those ones with already lot of money and still desiring more!

[edit on 7-2-2006 by E_T]







 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join