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.

 

Folks, This Is Getting Serious

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Nygdan

Indeed, they could. Problem is, they don't. Sunspot and flare activity do not explain the warming trend.



LOL, anything you have to say after this will just be a joke to me. First you say "Yes they could", then you say "they don't". LMAO

Ok, let me see your sources for this, I would like to laugh at them.

[edit on 21-9-2006 by LAES YVAN]




posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThinksYouAreAnIdiot

Originally posted by Mr_Peel

Originally posted by Thinker_1
I have a question - with all the ice that has already melted, why are the coasts not flooded yet? Where is the water going? Anyone know?


I believe there has been a rise in ocean level. I know the streets of Venice are now under the lagoon surface for something like 4 months of the year...

It's hard to get down to the level of year-to-year granularity, but you can see the trend is a slight acceleration here:

en.wikipedia.org...:Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png



Venice is sinking. Has been for hundreds of years. Thats why many of the older buildings have walled off thier basements, they are now underwater.
Incereased water levels in venice simply means that the sinking is continuing.


Has a point.
If it's only in Venice, and cannot be reported from even a neighboring city, it's pure bunk.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

Originally posted by ThinksYouAreAnIdiot
Tell me speaker, other than the results of his research, how do you determine a "legitimate scientist" from a "paid shill" Becuase is seems to me your criteria is whether or not his or her research provides evidence which supports your favored theory.


I am going to be highly suspicious of any findings of a "scientist" who is fiananced by one of the major polluters, especially when they erroneously state things like, "Well, the factories aren't a major contributor to pollution,et cetera." It doesn't take a genius to figure out that statements like that are not only bought and paid for, but entirely false. It's as simple as that.

And I have a hard time beliveing scientists paid by Green Peace and other evironmental terrorists, either.


Sadly people have an agenda going into most of this.

There's likely no such thing as an unbiased report in this field.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Here is an interesting article about solar radiation affecting the "greenhouse effect":


May 10, 2005
Global Warming: Something New Under the Sun?
Filed under: Climate Forcings, Aerosols, Solar —
That appears to be what is happening, judging from three papers in the May 6 issue of Science.

These three papers argue that the amount of incoming solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth has increased dramatically in the last two decades. While the values vary from paper to paper, in toto the new studies suggest that the increase in solar radiation absorbed at the earth’s surface had almost 10 times as much warming power during that time as the concurrent increases in carbon dioxide, the main global warming gas. Therefore, the warming observed over the past 20 years must have little to do with changes in greenhouse gases.

Before you kill the greenhouse effect, please note that we think this is a lot of hooey. But if you accept these results, that’s where you have to go.


You’d think it would be huge news that the greenhouse scare is over. Instead, the “news” sections of Science and Nature are behaving in their predictable fashion. In Nature, Quirin Schiermeier wrote “this may worsen the greenhouse effect.”

Really?



Solar Radiation


You go ta way above for this...


Why do people have to lock onto their theories with the tenacity of a bulldog, and not even listen to other point of views? I mean, even when I'm being a complete butt, I'm never totally dismissing their point of view. I at least give it a moment of thought, even when I think it's asinine. (doesn't make me any better, because I'm still a butt.)



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by LAES YVAN

Originally posted by soficrow
Sorry - but I find your comments uneducated, and your attempts to trivialize the topic crude. To say the least.


I can say the same for you.. Do you really think the Earth doesn't have its own ability to clean itself? Are you saying we should plug up and stop every single volcano in the world?? Earth is one big burning fossil fuel, we are just on the crust of it. You would think, by now Earths air would be deadly, since Earth has been polluting itself since the beginning... I'm 100% certain the Earth has its own way of cleaning itself.

Acid rain huh, does it rain every day? No.

Now, is the green house gases really a bad thing? I mean if green houses are used to make plants grow faster, wouldn't that make the plants on Earth grow faster?

[edit on 21-9-2006 by LAES YVAN]

Hmm, sounds like a plan.

1 giant clear plastic bag, a pan of watered soil, and a nitrogen/CO2 tank installed, and some typical seedlings to test on.


Darn, she beat me to it: here

So, to decrease world hunger, I've gotta increase CO2?
Talk about a way to end potatoe famines.

The issue with CO2 increasage is the lack of an increase in nitrogen. To make CO2 a useful thing, we need mor eplants witht he ability to fix their own nitrogen in the soil.

Plant gene therapy, anyone?



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by LAES YVAN

Originally posted by soficrow
Sorry - but I find your comments uneducated, and your attempts to trivialize the topic crude. To say the least.


I can say the same for you.. Do you really think the Earth doesn't have its own ability to clean itself? Are you saying we should plug up and stop every single volcano in the world?? Earth is one big burning fossil fuel, we are just on the crust of it. You would think, by now Earths air would be deadly, since Earth has been polluting itself since the beginning... I'm 100% certain the Earth has its own way of cleaning itself.

Acid rain huh, does it rain every day? No.

Now, is the green house gases really a bad thing? I mean if green houses are used to make plants grow faster, wouldn't that make the plants on Earth grow faster?

[edit on 21-9-2006 by LAES YVAN]


Something you and everyone else who argues from your point of view fails to mention or realize is that man puts tons of other toxic chemicals into the atmosphere other than carbon dioxide.



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by jlc163
And I have a hard time beliveing scientists paid by Green Peace and other evironmental terrorists, either.




Now environmentalists are "terrorists"....
You're making an allusion to the ELF (Earth Liberation Front)....
You do realize that the real ELF has never participated in the "actions" of some of their so-called members, don't you?

[edit on 22-9-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

[edit on 22-9-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Speaker - The tons (thousands of tons actually) of other materials introduced into the atmosphere by the industrialized world each year (mostly by China and Russia by the way) do not cause atmospheric or ocean warming. You'll notice I omitted the term "toxic" I view it as a useless modifier...everything is toxic in certain exposures and concentrations. Most of the thousdands of tons of atmospheric pollution each year consist of particulates (unburned fuel and carbon) and Sulfur dioxide and Nitrogen oxide.

These particulates and smog forming gases block sunlight from reaching the surface resulting in cooling.

Please review these air pollutant inventories:

asia

global


My final opinion on this topic can be summarized as follows:

a) Change is constant - the world climate has been changing for ever and will continue to do so.

b) Human activity, while real, has a negligable affect on global climate.

c) Any of the behaivior modifications supported by GW activists would cause much more human suffering around the world than is justifiable by any decrease in the rate of global warming.

Good Day


[edit on 9/22/2006 by darkbluesky]



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

Well, for one, I am not aware of any financial benefit that greenpeace would accrue from global warming being a fact. You do realize that if it's proven that all of these chemical plants are contributing to the warming of the globe that they will have to either change their tactics or shut down? Who stands to lose? The big corporations do.

So,tell me, why wouldn't big corporations support skewed "scientific" findings? Why should I view these "findings" as reliable?



SpeakerofTruth,

You have mentioned now countless times how our "population" is ignorant to the facts, and dont research.
I would like to point out a few things that apparently seem to escape your grasp as well as ask you a couple of questions.

I don't think that anyone is arguing the case for the "global warming" phenomenon. Anyone who even reads the news can surely be aware that the mean temperature GLOBALLY has increased by approximately 1 degree over the last 100 years or so. In summary to say that when 'global warming is a fact' would only be redundant and unnecessary research, it IS a fact. The variables which have the CAUSE of that fact are what's in question to the populace, not the fact itself.

Now to ask you a few questions:

Have you personally done research with NOAA data on climatic change?
Have you taken their accrual of years worth of data, run it through algorithm after algorithm to determine variance?
Have you personally taken the data from ARGO's Oceanic buoys and run them through algorithm after algorithm to determine variance between SST (sea surface temperature) and salinity?
Have you personally taken the data from Hadley centers vast array of climatic data and examined it yourself over say the last 100 years to determine much of the same?
Have you personally BEEN to antarctica and seen that while SOME of the worlds glaciers are retreating a large portion of them are in fact GROWING?
Have you personally done any research on the Gakkel ridge (in case you werent aware this lies under the arctic ocean).
Do you listen to more than your own agenda?


I would say, that, for you to not be a victim of that which you decry, if you have answered no to a majority of those questions, then perhaps it time to start reading a bit more, time to start analyzing a bit more, and time to draw conclusions with soundness based on your OWN scientific research apart from citing articles that have been DRAFTED by others.



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone
SpeakerofTruth,

You have mentioned now countless times how our "population" is ignorant to the facts, and dont research.
I would like to point out a few things that apparently seem to escape your grasp as well as ask you a couple of questions.

I don't think that anyone is arguing the case for the "global warming" phenomenon. Anyone who even reads the news can surely be aware that the mean temperature GLOBALLY has increased by approximately 1 degree over the last 100 years or so. In summary to say that when 'global warming is a fact' would only be redundant and unnecessary research, it IS a fact. The variables which have the CAUSE of that fact are what's in question to the populace, not the fact itself.

Now to ask you a few questions:

Have you personally done research with NOAA data on climatic change?
Have you taken their accrual of years worth of data, run it through algorithm after algorithm to determine variance?
Have you personally taken the data from ARGO's Oceanic buoys and run them through algorithm after algorithm to determine variance between SST (sea surface temperature) and salinity?
Have you personally taken the data from Hadley centers vast array of climatic data and examined it yourself over say the last 100 years to determine much of the same?
Have you personally BEEN to antarctica and seen that while SOME of the worlds glaciers are retreating a large portion of them are in fact GROWING?
Have you personally done any research on the Gakkel ridge (in case you werent aware this lies under the arctic ocean).
Do you listen to more than your own agenda?


I would say, that, for you to not be a victim of that which you decry, if you have answered no to a majority of those questions, then perhaps it time to start reading a bit more, time to start analyzing a bit more, and time to draw conclusions with soundness based on your OWN scientific research apart from citing articles that have been DRAFTED by others.


You see, while I can understand what you are stating, you cannot justifiably criticize me for something of which I am fairly certain you haven't done yourself.

Have you:


Have you personally done research with NOAA data on climatic change?
Have you taken their accrual of years worth of data, run it through algorithm after algorithm to determine variance?
Have you personally taken the data from ARGO's Oceanic buoys and run them through algorithm after algorithm to determine variance between SST (sea surface temperature) and salinity?
Have you personally taken the data from Hadley centers vast array of climatic data and examined it yourself over say the last 100 years to determine much of the same?
Have you personally BEEN to antarctica and seen that while SOME of the worlds glaciers are retreating a large portion of them are in fact GROWING?
Have you personally done any research on the Gakkel ridge (in case you werent aware this lies under the arctic ocean).
Do you listen to more than your own agenda?


You see, you may have done a couple of those things, but there are two or three things on there that I know without any doubt, you haven't done. So, I suggest you answer those questions for yourself before you throw it up in someone elses face. Good Day


[edit on 22-9-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky
You'll notice I omitted the term "toxic" I view it as a useless modifier...everything is toxic in certain exposures and concentrations. Most of the thousdands of tons of atmospheric pollution each year consist of particulates (unburned fuel and carbon) and Sulfur dioxide and Nitrogen oxide.

[edit on 9/22/2006 by darkbluesky]


So,in other words you don't view toxic chemicals as toxic?



I view it as a useless modifier...everything is toxic in certain exposures and concentrations.


So,you think that the earth throws toxins into the atmosphere as well,eh?
Okay..... no comment on that one.... LMAO



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Here is a site on Natural toxins
seafood.ucdavis.edu...

Here is a site on man made toxins:

www.ibf3.com...



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

Originally posted by Essan

What good are vehicles if you can't drive them because of massive flooding due to polar ice caps melting?


The world is not going to suddenly flood or freeze like Al Gore says these things take time. And in Antartica they have found out that it is actually gaining ice. Many scientist throw global warming around to get noticed and to get money.

"an inconveinent truth" for Gore is that most of the warming is due to natural causes and many people use the fear factor to scare everyone out of their minds.

Twenty years ago wasn't everyone afraid of freezing to death. And in the long hall no matter what we do even if it does flood eveything has to adapt or die.

I am glad that the Bush administration has withdrew us from numerous treaties that would hurt the economy for no reason at all trying to protect us from the whole earth flooding.



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by spinstopshere
I am glad that the Bush administration has withdrew us from numerous treaties that would hurt the economy for no reason at all trying to protect us from the whole earth flooding.


Well, on that note, I will admit that Bush's refusal to go along with the Kyoto accord was probably a good thing. Most are in agreement that the Kyoto accord probably would have done more harm than good to the environment.



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 02:41 PM
link   
This environmental chemist is of the opinion that global warming is a natural
phenomenon, and that humankind can have, and have had little if any effect
on this natural climatic process. After years of study, I have found zero compelling evidence to suggest otherwise.

I am an independent researcher funded by...myself.



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAvenger
This environmental chemist is of the opinion that global warming is a natural
phenomenon, and that humankind can have, and have had little if any effect
on this natural climatic process. After years of study, I have found zero compelling evidence to suggest otherwise.

I am an independent researcher funded by...myself.


You know what, let me just state that you may very well be correct...I have no doubt, much like the others here, that the earth is quite capable of taking care of her own. My biggest fear is...what is humanity going to have to suffer in the process?

We,as stewards of the earth, should give her a helping hand now and again. If we don't, we may have to just accept whatever may come. (Like the old saying goes, 'Grin and bear it'.) Do you really want to have to do that?



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

Originally posted by darkbluesky
You'll notice I omitted the term "toxic" I view it as a useless modifier...everything is toxic in certain exposures and concentrations. Most of the thousdands of tons of atmospheric pollution each year consist of particulates (unburned fuel and carbon) and Sulfur dioxide and Nitrogen oxide.

[edit on 9/22/2006 by darkbluesky]


So,in other words you don't view toxic chemicals as toxic?






I view it as a useless modifier...everything is toxic in certain exposures and concentrations.


So,you think that the earth throws toxins into the atmosphere as well,eh?
Okay..... no comment on that one.... LMAO


On the Contrary...when I say everything is toxic, I mean everything is toxic. I make no distinction between natural or man made. My point is there is no difference

If "toxins" vs. "pollutants" makes you feel better, fine. My point is many of the toxins produce effects not related to warming. Please review my 3 itemized conclusions about the whole concept of man made global warming and let me know where you think I'm wrong. Thanks

a) Change is constant - the world climate has been changing for ever and will continue to do so.

b) Human activity, while real, has a negligable affect on global climate.

c) Any of the behaivior modifications supported by GW activists would cause much more human suffering around the world than is justifiable by any decrease in the rate of global warming.



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 03:16 PM
link   
This global warming stuff sounds familiar to me.

Let me see.....yes I remember about 25-30 years ago scientists making a fuss over the OZONE LAYER. Anyone remember that? They said by this time no one would be able to go out in the sun, skin cancer would hit all time highs, and a whole bunch of crap...I don't know, but, I've been going to the beach every summer and they're are still lots of girls in bikinis!!!!!

I also remember about 10 or 12 years ago, Ted Danson (the actor) was running around saying that we have poluted the oceans to the point that there would not be any fish left to eat....I don't know but there doesn't seem to be any shortage of tuna at my local pathmark!!!!

Now, we have Al Gore saying that all we have is 10 years left before global warming heats up the the poles and melts the ice caps and we will all be living in house boats throwing our piss and crap into one big ocean.

Lets do somethiing here, lets start a countdown for ten years. He said this thing in the beginning of this year. So, lets see what happens in ten years. January 2016...I can't wait.



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 07:28 PM
link   
ProfTom, when you have a chance, take a look at this week's Yahoo!News story about the near-record size of the current Ozone Hole. The latest measurements show that it has bounced back to almost its highest-ever overall size.

The 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth includes many of Al Gore's summary charts and tables about climate change over the last several decades. If you didn't have a chance to see the film in theaters, the book version (with many more charts and supplemental data) was published in June 2006, and the DVD version (with some new material) will be released in November 2006. Last I heard, some free versions of the DVD will go to educational institutions. -- Hope this helps.



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 02:17 PM
link   
I am not as fanatical as Al Gore is on this subject, but the title of his video An Inconvenient Truth could not have been more properly named. The environmental disaster that we now live in is very much an inconvenience for big corporations. That is why they spend so much money funding research to "prove" that there is not a problem. You see folks, the big money grubbers, particularly here in the U.S, don't only not want to change their ways, they do not want to be held accountable for any damage they have caused.

To me, the single biggest issue in the world today, regardless if you are talking about the environment, politics, education, religion, or whatever, is the lack of accountability. I have said it once, and I will say it over and over and over, people do not want to be accountable. It's alway someone or something else's fault. Here is the prevailing mentality,not just here in the U.S but around the world.

"It's never me;it's always you."

[edit on 25-9-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join