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 Con Job

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   
I just saw a commercial on the tube for "Fight Global Warming dot Com". This is getting out of hand...

Fighting global warming is like trying to stop the sun from rising every morning by throwing rocks at it!
A complete waste of time.
These so called "scientists" who keep saying that cows farting, cars, fossil fuels and the lack of trees are causing it are trying to pull off a Global Con Job.

In reality global warming has been happening for 18,000 years and theres nothing we did to cause it nor is there anything we can do to stop it. This is way bigger than our tiny little presence on this planet.

The truth is pretty scary and we definitely have some serious challenges headed our way in the next couple hundred years, but knowing and understanding how and why this is happening is much more important than buying Carbon Offsets or planting a bunch of trees.

I highly recommend that people ignore all these global warming opportunist and learn about what is really going on... www.geocraft.com...

Only then can we start to prepare for the changes to come.




posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Fact: CO2 in the atmosphere will warm the planet.

Fact: There are limited sources of C to burn.

Fact: Infinite growth is not possible.

You will have to fend for yourself.

Signing out

Good Luck



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by heatratio
Fact: CO2 in the atmosphere will warm the planet.

True


Fact: There are limited sources of C to burn.

True


Fact: Infinite growth is not possible.

True

Fact: Water is wet.

Fact: None of these facts has anything at all to do with global warming... or this thread.

But thanks anyway!



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nemithesis
Fact: None of these facts has anything at all to do with global warming... or this thread.
But thanks anyway!


Ah but they do! I can tell by your posts that you don't really know much about global warming. How much scientific research have you done on Global Warming? You don't present any evidence or sources of evidence for your theory, which just makes it your opinion, but not fact.

I am married to a biologist, we both have done extensive investigation into GW. There is not one single published peer-reviewed scientific paper that says it's not happening. There are no scientists, not one, who are real scientists worth their salt who don't believe in GW. The entire scientific community has been up in arms because the govt keeps trying to suppress the facts and the scientists opinion. It is a known fact that the U.S. govt has bureaucrats (not scientists) to go through and edit scientific papers/findings to reflect no danger from GW. But that's propaganda, not the truth.

CO2 is by far is the leading major cause of the greenhouse effect. Trees and all green plants help to balance oxygen and CO2 because they take in CO2 and breath out oxygen. The Amazon forest, just for one example, has been greatly deforested. It used to produce 1/4 of the world's oxygen. Now it's about 1/6 and that was a number of years ago so it's probably even lower by now. That is why we need forests, only one reason why.

So what is happening is that the CO2 is outweighing the oxygen on our planet and if it goes far enough there won't be enough oxygen for mammals to survive. The greenhouse effect warms the planet, which means the ice caps melt, as well as alot of the snow on the higher mountains such as Kilimanjaro and the Himalayas. This means ALOT less water for us, on a planet which is already running out of water.

Yes the earth has its cycles. But this one is way, way off the chart and the CO2 is way, way off the chart, IOW, the earth has never been this bad off or had this much CO2. All the major scientists agree that the current changes are mostly caused by human's using fossil fuels. There may be a cyclical event happening, but it's not the major cause.

James Lovelock himself, a biophysicist and the first ecologist to study changes on planet Earth, believes that the main problem may be deforestation, not enough plant life to change CO2 into oxygen.

This is only a small portion of the information that's out there.



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nemithesis
[...] Fighting global warming is like trying to stop the sun from rising every morning by throwing rocks at it!
A complete waste of time. [...]


Agreed. It's definitely cyclic in nature like everything else in, well, nature. But there's one thing that's not a waste of time and that is mitigating it. Decelerating global warming. Delaying the inevitable, that's what we can do and I say we all start NOW.

THIS VERY INSTANT!

Turn off that light you are not using. Why are you wasting energy? Releasing greenhouse gasses unnecessarily... do you want to push us off the edge?



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by forestlady

There are no scientists, not one, who are real scientists worth their salt who don't believe in GW.



Every real scientist believes in global warming?

What an amazing correlation, a correlation of 1. You never see that kind of a correlation in statistical analysis, unless the data set is skewed.

Sounds like they are definitely divided up into teams. Like maybe, anyone who questions this dogma is ipso facto no longer a real scientist. That's political correctness. Real science allows for testing hypothesis and peer review from ALL perspectives. What you describe sounds like stalinist groupthink.


I'll give you some info, unsourced, that convinced me. I don't expect it to convince you (since it's unsourced in this post), but my research did it for me.

Item 1: There are ~180 million cows in the US today.

In prehistoric times, there were as many as 210 million bison here. Both creatures are of the genus Bos. Both fart methane. So methane production from bovines has declined . . . there's a 'fart gap' on the American plains! But you won't here anything from the GW crowd but how ranching is killing the fragile air.



Item 2: Mts. Kitmai, Pinatubo, Kilauea and St. Helens dumped more sulfides into the atmosphere than the entire human industrial revolution.

But the Kyoto accords would have made a "huge difference" in greenhouse emmissions, right?


Item 3: The hole in the ozone is over the south pole.

But most of the industrial activity, which CAUSED the hole according to globalist dogma, has been caused by the mean evil industrialization of the northern hemisphere. But the Coriolis effect should force that heavier pollution to the NORTH pole, and not the south. Unless of course, the hole in the ozone was caused by recent volcanic eruptions, which have been much higher in the southern hemisphere.


I'm not inviting anyone to a shouting match about my info. I haven't even bothered to source it. I'm just saying, these considerations lead me to believe there is reason to question the human role in global warming, or the human ability to alter it. Too me, the issue seems to be "blame the industrialized white males" at every possible opportunity.

But pay no attention to me, I'm just a brainwashed, superstitious sheep, who believes what he's been told by questionable authorities with ulterior motives, right?



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

Every real scientist believes in global warming?

What an amazing correlation, a correlation of 1. You never see that kind of a correlation in statistical analysis, unless the data set is skewed.

Sounds like they are definitely divided up into teams. Like maybe, anyone who questions this dogma is ipso facto no longer a real scientist. That's political correctness. Real science allows for testing hypothesis and peer review from ALL perspectives. What you describe sounds like stalinist groupthink.




Yes, that's right. There are no peer-reviewed scientific papers that say GW is not real. And those are the papers that professional scientists write and then review each other's work before it's published. Any other articles, etc. are written by people who are not professional scientists or their theories are not good enough to be published. You may choose to see it as Stalinist groupthink, but it isn't and its far from the truth. If anything, the experts are being silenced by this admin. There was an entire 60 minutes segment on that. There are any number of people who write about GW, but they are not climatologits, geologist or any other kind of scientist writing it, so they don't have the full scope of scientific knowledge. These peer-reviewed scientists have worked in their specialty all their lives. Why don't we go with what the experts have to say, huh?



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nemithesis

Originally posted by heatratio
Fact: CO2 in the atmosphere will warm the planet.

True


Fact: There are limited sources of C to burn.

True


Fact: Infinite growth is not possible.

True

Fact: Water is wet.

Fact: None of these facts has anything at all to do with global warming... or this thread.

But thanks anyway!


Here Here Global Warmong is a crock....... It's a natural cycle not manmade.

Nice thread Nemithesis.



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by kuhl

Here Here Global Warmong is a crock....... It's a natural cycle not manmade.[...]



Did you click on the link I posted previously? I agree it's a cycle too, but why didn't you read the article from that link and tell me what you think after that?

Edit: Didn't, not don't... typo

[edit on 16-12-2006 by Beachcoma]



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 04:31 PM
link   
An interesting read I agree but maybe things are supposed to move forward as part of a natural progression after all our development as Humans (which are part of nature or a plan ) has been to create these carbon spewing factories and machines.

Why do things change?? ....progression ..whether it's good or bad for US it's progression.



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 04:34 PM
link   
A change to less carbon-based economic system would be a good progression. Not doing anything to get there is no progress at all.



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Beachcoma
A change to less carbon-based economic system would be a good progression. Not doing anything to get there is no progress at all.


In your opinion (which I respect)maybe, but in my opinion global warming will pass ....like bird flu.



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 04:42 PM
link   
I certainly hope your opinion is the right one. It'll buy us all more time to convert to a more sustainable and safer energy alternative to what we currently have.



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by forestlady

There are any number of people who write about GW, but they are not climatologits, geologist or any other kind of scientist writing it, so they don't have the full scope of scientific knowledge.

emphasis added by dr_strangecraft


Knowledge and diplomas are not synonymous. I will readily agree that the vast majority of experts are credentialed in any given field. But the label of "scientist" is ultimately a self-applied one. You're making an assuption that someone MUST NOT BE a real scientist if they disagree. Once again, that's politics, not science.



These peer-reviewed scientists have worked in their specialty all their lives. Why don't we go with what the experts have to say, huh?


Because they are so often wrong.

In 1972, the leading geologists and climatologists predicted that the Ogallala aquifer would be exhausted by 1996; that all the cities relying on that aquifer would become ghost-towns. In 2002, they revamped their predictions, saying that it would run out by . . . 2102. We went from 20 years of water, to 100 more years of water, in less than 20 years.

The classical example in modern physics is the michelson-morley experiment

And the founder of modern Quantum Theory,
Max planck, couldn't get a teaching job, and had no credentials when he formed his theory that is the basis of modern astrophysics.

That's why I'm not content to "go with what the experts say."

Science grows by questioning authority, not by adhering to it.



all the best.

.



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 06:07 PM
link   
I thought the majority of oxygen comes from algae and not the forrests/rainforests.

I do agree however we need to clean up are act, I personally think Earth is heating up due to the solar cycle just look at the other planets.

What annoys me though is people say we need to do something about this, turn off your plugs when you not using them, buy this car because of less emmisions and electric cars? now seriously you charge your car via electricity which comes from power stations so were going round in circles again. Thats not my responsibility I pay for the electricity, fuel not "how its produced" thas the responsibility of the company and nothings going to change their ways unless laws are passed to force the way they produce and make. Money talks so this I very much doubt will happen.



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 06:22 PM
link   
It's not the lack of oxygen that warms the planet, but an excess of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses plus the Sun's own slightly erratic energy output. Forests in the right place will help that.

Planting Trees Doesn't Necessarily Mitigate Global Warming

The thing with electric cars is it takes the power right off the grid. So you are right about the power companies needing to clean up their act before electric cars can actually make much of a difference. Hybrids are another thing altogether though.



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 07:29 PM
link   
I can't argue with the idea of saving energy and burning less fossil fuels. That is just smart. Reducing pollution will have many positive effects like reducing cancers, reduce heat trapping smog over cities and lessen the danger to the ecology of fresh water lakes and forests.

Using a topic that is effecting weather everywhere to promote a energy conservation revolution by inflating and skewing the scientific reasons behind the weather changes is, for the lack of a better word, misleading.

What will happen if countries spend billions to curb CO2 emissions and the oceans still warm up as scheduled, creating more greenhouse effect and more warming? Oops, I guess we wasted a lot of resources for nothing. Every minor cool trend in a given year will be even more ammo for the 'fight GW' effort. But when things get warm enough for whatever creates the reversal, and things start getting really cold really quickly, I guess all the people who keep saying we caused it will turn around and tell us to start burning as much CO2 causing elements as possible to slow down the cooling?

There might not be enough resources left to keep us warm.



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 07:48 PM
link   
I don't see anything wrong with spending money developing ways to curb emissions and wean us of fossil fuels. It's still a positive thing for all the things you mentioned earlier, Nemithesis, in your first paragraph above.

If it turns out that the planet starts cooling, we'd not only have alternatives to choose from, we might also still have some fossil fuels to slow down the cooling as you said. It's a win-win situation the way I see it.

As long as it's not wasted on ideas that are not practical. Read this thread by sardion2000:

Why the Hydrogen Economy Doesn't Matter

Some good reading there.



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Look, you 'GW is caused by humans' doubters, nobody is disagreeing that it is a natural cycle, it's just that we as humans aren't helping it any by doing our part to make it worse.
A natural cycle + human Co2 production = overload

A natural cycle alone wouldn't be so bad, so quick.

So don't deny humanity is part of the problem, because we are. To say we aren't is unrealistic.



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toadmund
A natural cycle + human Co2 production = overload


The human Co2 element seems to be the major argument in the controversy of whether or not we directly effect the global climate.

I have yet to come to any conclusion on the Co2 issue because the only verified info I can find on it shows that it is a very insignificant part of the atmosphere...




new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join