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.

 

Bush Administration covers up truth about Global Warming

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 10:59 AM
link   
After checking with my scientist/biologist) husband he has this to say:

- Carbon monoxide does get turned into carbon dioxide.
- Carbon dioxide IS the leading gas causing global warming.
- Airplanes and factories emit carbon dioxide. Cars emit monixide, but it
turns into carbon dioxide.

And many scientists, including James Lovelock (the biophysicist who started the whole idea of ecology) think that the leading cause overall is deforestation because of its ability to turn carbon dioxide into oxygen. The Amazon for example used to produce one fifth of the world's oxygen. But it has been steadily deforested over the last 40 or 50 years and is now much, much smaller than it was. I believe it now produces only one fourth or one third - that is an extremely significant event because it means that we have less oxygen than before.


Hope this helps to clear things up a bit.




posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 04:20 PM
link   
What do your husband and James Lovelock have to say about: Methane, Nitrous Oxide and Fluorocarbons??

And...what do your husband and James Lovelock have to say about the Bush Administration's handling of the global warming problem and the fact that the Bush Administration has done nothing to help the problem but in fact has passed legislation which has and will make the problem worse?

[edit on 11-12-2006 by Excitable_Boy]



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 12:34 AM
link   
You're still avoiding the issue.

You discredited the petition written by 17,000 scientists against global warming, in my quote from Harry Browne, solely on the basis that carbon dioxide is not a cause of global warming. You ridiculed my entire argument over that one point. As it turned out, everyone is proving you wrong. Everyone that believes in global warming names carbon dioxide as the major cause.

Now that your one point of opposition against my posts has been discredited, what do you have to say about them?



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 06:04 AM
link   


Now that your one point of opposition against my posts has been discredited, what do you have to say about them?



I made many more than just one point of opposition friend....and nothing has been discredited. Scientists are split 50/50 on Carbon Dioxide having anything to with global warming. The only mistake I made and I'll gladly admit to is that I said CO2 wasn't a greenhouse gas and it is. I'm still on the side of CO2 not being part of the global warming problem....

People sharing opposing opinions does not discredit anything.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 12:08 PM
link   
www.canadafreepress.com...


"We are all skeptics now. It appears that the UN is now acknowledging what an increasing number of scientists who study the climate have come to realize: Predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming are simply unsustainable," Senator Inhofe said.


So now I guess the UN is behind the cover-up?


The Earth, though it's ~3.5 billion year history, has had numerous temperature fluxuations. When the dinasours were around the Earth was humid and hot, the ice age had more cooler temperatures.Scientists have stated that Earth has been going through a 'warming' cycle the past 10,000 years.

We ahve no idea what a planetary weather cycle is like or how long they last. Instead of having an actual debate you have Al Gore running around like chicken little saying the sky is falling and using 'so-called' facts to affect a population unwilling to do any research themselves.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 03:14 PM
link   


Instead of having an actual debate you have Al Gore running around like chicken little saying the sky is falling and using 'so-called' facts to affect a population unwilling to do any research themselves.



What is a "so-called" fact? And would you expect every citizen of the world, all 6+ Billion, to research this issue? If this isn't a debate we're having in this thread, what is it?

And as far as your comment about the UN.....they are capable of covering up anything just like any other government entity......get real!



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Don't be so defensive. It has been established that there are thousands of scientists who have concluded that global warming is not a threat, and that the temperature increase is related to something else. I guess everyone needs something to be afraid of. Personally, I'm much more afraid of Ten Thousand Year Old Magical Purple Dinosaurs taking over the world than I am of global warming.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   


It has been established that there are thousands of scientists who have concluded that global warming is not a threat, and that the temperature increase is related to something else. I guess everyone needs something to be afraid of. Personally, I'm much more afraid of Ten Thousand Year Old Magical Purple Dinosaurs taking over the world than I am of global warming.



And there are thousands of scientists who have concluded that it is a threat. I'm not afraid of global warming friend, but I am concerned for my children and the future generations on this planet. keep living in denial. It's a great place. Everything is wonderful in denial...it's like Shangri La!!

Here's some info from some scientists that believe global warming IS a problem...a serious problem.....



Global warming is one of the most serious challenges facing us today. To protect the health and economic well-being of current and future generations, we must reduce our emissions of heat-trapping gases by using the technology, know-how, and practical solutions already at our disposal.


Climate change in the U.S. Northeast

Climate policy update—July 2006

Human fingerprints of climate change

2005 one of hottest years on record

Northeastern governors show bold leadership on global warming

Global warming lending strength to hurricanes

Heat wave 2005 and global warming

Hurricanes and climate change

source: www.ucsusa.org...


The Union of Concerned Scientists is a non-profit organization that has been around since 1969. They obviously have a grasp on the problem and, being non-profit, they don't have their pockets wide open waiting for pay offs from the large companies that are causing most of the pollution that is causing the problems. The companies that have George Bush and all his chronies in their pockets for example.....

Why has the Bush Administration put into affect more than 200 major rollbacks of America's environmental laws? Why? Because they are owned by big business. Ruining our environment is making a lot of people extremely rich!!

Keep fighting the purple dinosaurs SouthernCross and I'll keep concerning myself with the reality of the world!

Ask yourself this: What are the true agendas of the people, scientists, etc...that are saying global warming is not a problem?



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Excitable_Boy
What do your husband and James Lovelock have to say about: Methane, Nitrous Oxide and Fluorocarbons??

And...what do your husband and James Lovelock have to say about the Bush Administration's handling of the global warming problem and the fact that the Bush Administration has done nothing to help the problem but in fact has passed legislation which has and will make the problem worse?

[edit on 11-12-2006 by Excitable_Boy]


My husband is very upset about it. He says that out of all the peer-reviewed scientific papers, (last count 900 and something papers) not ONE scientist thought GW was only a trividal problem. All of them agree that GW is a very serious threat. The only scientists saying GW does't exist are the ones who aren't good enough to have their papers published.

What Lovelock says and me and my husband agree on is that deforestation may well be the most important concern, even more than greenhouse gases. Plants take in CO2 and change it into oxygen. If we don't have enough plants, forests, etc. to do that, then we are ending up with less oxygen and too much CO2 for any animal life to exist in the near future. Without enough plant life, in th eend, we're doomed.

CO2 is by far and away the worst greenhouse gas that threatens us.

I believe that George Bush, the U.S. and their ilk, are trying to keep the level of public fear down by downplaying the the very real threat that GW presents. There simply aren't any good scientists who don't believe it's a serious problem; however, they are being silenced and their papers are actually being rewritten by govt bureacratic hacks, who know nothing of science. That info was also on 60 Minutes last year.

OK, now I'll put on my flame retardant cape, so I'm ready for the barage of critics.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 09:37 AM
link   
For those of you who think global warming is a joke or that greenhouse gas emissions are nothing to be concerned about, here is an article that reports on a research that was recently published in Science magazine.


Ancient climate change may portend toasty future

Scientists, including Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology, have found that the Earth’s global warming, 55 million years ago, may have resulted from the climate’s high sensitivity to a long-term release of carbon. This finding contradicts the position held by many climate-change skeptics that the Earth system is resilient to such emissions. The work, led by Mark Pagani of Yale University, is published in the December 8, 2006, issue of Science magazine.


For some years scientists have known that an ancient global warming event, called the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) beginning about 55 million years ago, was caused by a massive release of carbon. The geologic record shows that the ensuing greenhouse effect heated the planet by about 9° F (5° C), on average, in less than 10,000 years. The temperature increase lasted 170,000 years and caused profound changes to the world’s rainfall patterns, made the oceans acidic, and affected oceanic and terrestrial plant and animal life, including spawning the rise of our modern primate ancestors. But understanding just how much carbon was responsible for the temperature increase and where it came from remains elusive.

The new calculations used data from carbon found in fossils of ancient land plants and tiny marine organisms known as plankton. "We can tell that the amount of carbon released to the atmosphere and ocean was more or less the same as what is available today as coal, oil, and gas," Caldeira explained. "The carbon heated up the Earth for over 100,000 years. If the climate was as insensitive to CO2 as the climate skeptics claim, there would be no way to make the Earth so warm for so long."

The source of this ancient carbon is still a mystery. It might have come from massive fires burning coal and other ancient plant material, or it could have come from "burps" of methane from the continental shelves.

[Click the link for the full story]


Bolded bits by me for emphasis and focus.

Now even if GW is cyclic in nature, which I don't doubt, do you really want to push THIS current cycle off the edge so that the Earth is hotter for the next 100,000 years?

Think of what sort of problems that would cause. You'd need to spend more energy during summers for air-conditioning. You'd need to upgrade the leevees (sp?) because sea levels would rise and hurricanes have become stronger because of warmer oceans. Entire species would disappear and there goes a potential cure for so and so disease.

But the best part is everyone would be much much warmer, and probably with a much shorter temper (read up on the heat-aggression hypothesis) so there might be more wars, especially with more people needing more energy for a/c, whilst known energy deposits become scarcer and scarcer.

I don't want to go there. Do you?



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 10:55 AM
link   
exciteboy-

My company is involved with the power industry - gas cooling and polution control - the problem is states like PA, allow their coal-burning power plants to pretty much pay-off the state with 'credits'. The costs of upgrading these facilities are enormous (I wish they would.....would be great for me) and costs always get passed down to the consumer. (electricity cost are high as it is, and in the North East we have an aging electrial grid)

Neverless the US is still below what the Kyoto Accord called for (even though we did not sign it) unlike the actual signees. So the US may pollute but we are not the worst in the world.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 04:40 PM
link   
ForestLady...thanks for the info. I appreciate it!




So the US may pollute but we are not the worst in the world.



I never said we were the worst. Comparing ourselves to other countries doesn't make our problem any smaller though does it? Why compare ourselves to the rest of the world? How does that solve anything?

If some countries have more people dying of AIDS, does that mean we don't have a problem with AIDS in the U.S.??

If some countries have more people being murdered, does that men we don't have a problem with murder in the U.S.??

What kind of argument is saying we aren't the worst polluter in the world? Does that mean we can keep the status quo?? We are supposed to wait until we ARE the worst before we do anything? Is that it??



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 11:30 AM
link   
excite - My point is that the US is working on reducing it's amount of pollutants....whereas the other countries are not.



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Well, global warming is still only just a theory, and a possible one but you cant bank on the research and science that is being done now. Its simply not advanced or thorough enough as I posted earlier in this thread. I dont believe in theories that dont have enough research behind them to be absolutely substantiated. There is no DEFINITIVE proof of global warming, but just little signs as of right now.



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 04:14 PM
link   


excite - My point is that the US is working on reducing it's amount of pollutants....whereas the other countries are not.



Really? How is the US working on this when the Bush administration has been elliminating America's environmental laws? Over 200 were ellimated by 2003 and many many more since then. So how is the US working on reducing its pollutants again? It seems the US is doing the opposite thanks to the horse's arse we have in the White House. He's too busy lining his pockets and the pockets of his chronies wtih money from the companies causing the pollution...do you think he cares if my children or their children live in a world with less pollution and less of a risk of global warming? Hardly! These psycopathic greed hungry scumbags only care about money and power...........



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 08:00 PM
link   
we can blah blah all we want about GW but the solutions are plain

1. reduce energy consumption
2. reduce population

erm...

thats it

both require a world government to administer

everyone ..... hands up who wants a world government




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join