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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 02:08 PM
link   
quote: So what can you prove, about global environmental change, based on those personal experiences?

My family has been affected. My community has been affected. Washed out roads, Destroyed homes, Erroded shores, all the wildlife disrupted. Thats personal experience. Why don't you ask some New Orleans residents what they think of GW. How about you ask some people in asia who have to deal with deadly sandstorms because of all the desertification this is causing.

quote: All you are really doing is making yourself feel better and 'involved'. If this is all your going to do your not going to achieve more than unwarranted emotions of 'righteousness' which sadly wont save the world or even you...

Everyone needs to do thier part in order for our efforts to be effective. I know lots of other GW believers who have made the extra effort also. The government made a decent dent in the problem years ago by banning certain dangerous gasses in various products. Google is building a massive amount of solar panels on thier land. Scientists and Auto companies are making a Hydrogen feul cell economy more feasable. Minnesotta is pushing the biodiesel concept. The combined effort could very well 'Save us'

quote: Get even angrier as you could be spreading the knowledge of free energy technologies instead of just getting angry and turning off your low power light to fume in the darkness.

Your jumping to conclusions in order to demean my position by mocking my lifestyle. Jerk. I don't appreciate your tone. And for the record I am quite vocal about any new technologies I hear about.

quote: Mostly ignorant as our brains are the same size and have the same potential as far as my knowledge goes.

stupid in the sense of bieng blind to anything that doesnt directly affect thier daily lives. Why does it take a wake up call like Katrina to get anyone to take notice of the danger?

quote: Don't waste your energy on anger as that will just add more destruction. If your current attempts at saving the world leaves you feeling this way it's time to change tact as your rational mind is telling you in no uncertain terms that your wasting your time by trying to do it alone.

Im only wasting my time if I go unheard. The more people who are convinced they need to Change thier wastefull environment damaging ways, the more impact we will have on the problem. I find people react more to anger than to calm rational scientific discussion. Emotion has more impact than logic. It hits deep into the subconcious where that sinking suspicion that something is very wrong in the world, dwells.

quote: The world is certainly a friendlier place than it was at any other time in recorded human history and considering mass extinctions of past bad things happens with or without humans. The fact that your wishing for the extinction of your own species leaves me wondering about the state, or lack of it, of your mind. Maybe it's time you change your mind about a wide variety of issues.

You've got me all wrong. I don't want humanity extinguished. Just reduced. In any ecosystem where a species goes unchecked due to lack of predation, there are dire consequences. Nature, war and disease are the only good population reducers we have left. And we can't even get war right. In WW2 millions died. We havent lost a fraction of that in current conflicts.

quote: According to the 'consensus' we affect the climate but that is about as much as they seem to have concluded. If you are willing to make conclusions based on such a vague 'consensus' your free to do so.

Good, you've hit the point finally. HUMANS AFFECT THE CLIMATE. If the climate is overheating, then the clear and obvious response is to do what is in our power to reduce that heating. If our affect on it is negligable as you would have us believe then we need to come up with ways to fix that too. Paint the planet white to increase reflectivity if thats what it takes.




posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 02:09 PM
link   
quote: Well there is no consensus that we are killinh of the human species by out actions. You only have to look at the world growth rates to notice this.

Yeah 10 billion of us in 20 years. But all the less adaptable species on earth will suffer for our arrogance. plants and animals cannot adapt to such rapid climate change. Humans cannot survive without the plants and the animals. Not unless your keen on the idea of mass regulated cannibalism. Soylent green anyone?

quote: Well we should but governments will only allow that under huge pressure from their voters and then only provide as 'clean' energy as solar, hydra and wind can which imo is the type of half measure that is not really worth the trouble.

This is fiction, but its a good estimate of changing our infrastructure to cleaner more efficient energy sources. lifeboat.com...


quote: What has humanity done that you find so aggravating? Would you care about the environment if you did not know where your next meal would come from? Poverty destroys the environment much much faster than people the people that drives SUV's can normally manage.

I have the luxury of caring. Im living in the USA and life is good. All my needs are met. I have to care because the poverty stricken third world populace can't do anything about it. Its terrible that the USA is responsible for the majority of the human affect on GW yet those who have the least affect on GW will be affected the most by it in turn. How fair is that?



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Maybe us GW naysayers would be moved to the cause if those who believed the harm of mankind is so detrimental took the first step and hung themselves (preferably with a rope of natural fibers) and made the planets burden that much lighter?

If saving the planet isnt worth killing yourselves you could always forsake your modern lives and hunt squirrels for meat and fur and eat unleven bread made from acorn meal.

Now that might convince me.

Trading in a gas powered vehicle for on that runs on electricity (generated by coal) isnt much of a step. Its on par with bringing your AA batteries to a hazardous waste plant.



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Mod Note: Drunk insult removed. Don't drink and post.


[edit on 11-1-2007 by TheBandit795]



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 10:47 PM
link   
oh come on. as a futurist and a futurama fan i thought bite my shiny metal ass was applicable.

heheheh
oh well
Im not taking this argument INCREDIBLY serious.
I find the whole GW argument silly, prove it isnt happenig at all and i'll bite my own shiny metal ass.



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by guyopitz
My family has been affected. My community has been affected. Washed out roads, Destroyed homes, Erroded shores, all the wildlife disrupted. Thats personal experience.


So what does that prove about the idea of global warming? How can you pretend that such a localized temperature changes are specific evidence of global change? Evidence?


Why don't you ask some New Orleans residents what they think of GW.


The scientist are quite adamant that we are just in a period of NATURAL heightened hurricane activity so if you have issues with their verdict take that up with them.


How about you ask some people in asia who have to deal with deadly sandstorms because of all the desertification this is causing.


There was desertification during the global dimming period ( 1940- 1970) as well so i don't think this can support your views,


Everyone needs to do thier part in order for our efforts to be effective. I know lots of other GW believers who have made the extra effort also.


Which is obviously not related to turning off lights or walking to work as you could have employed that time to spread the word and be a real activist that encourages people to start taking action on the political scene. We won't change anything by saving the meager energy we do by the measures so commonly proposed.


The government made a decent dent in the problem years ago by banning certain dangerous gasses in various products.


What they did is ensure that there was far less particle pollution and thus far less 'reflective' material in the atmosphere to held stave off atmospheric warming. Basically we can hold our governments directly responsible for any current warming by those actions alone.


Google is building a massive amount of solar panels on thier land.


So?


Scientists and Auto companies are making a Hydrogen feul cell economy more feasable. Minnesotta is pushing the biodiesel concept. The combined effort could very well 'Save us'


These things could all have been used since the start of the last century ( the technology was there) so don't come telling me their doing it now because there is global warming. The issues are simply not connected.


Your jumping to conclusions in order to demean my position by mocking my lifestyle. Jerk. I don't appreciate your tone. And for the record I am quite vocal about any new technologies I hear about.


I am only responding to what you said and i liked your tone far less than you could mine as you at least deserve it considering about statements and feelings towards humanity. If you can't get along with the rest of people on the planet please go find another one.


stupid in the sense of bieng blind to anything that doesnt directly affect thier daily lives.


Stupid in the sense that people have been consistently and persistently misinformed as to realities about their environment. It's got nothing to do with brain power and everything to do with how much they 'know' that is simply false.


Why does it take a wake up call like Katrina to get anyone to take notice of the danger?


If you can prove Katrina was related to global warming and not weather engineering, or the lack thereof, or purely natural causes then we have something to talk about.


Im only wasting my time if I go unheard.


Or if your blaming the wrong groups for something that has nothing to do with their activities.


The more people who are convinced they need to Change thier wastefull environment damaging ways, the more impact we will have on the problem.


And have you found to be generally be a good idea to accuse people of things you can not prove to be their fault?


I find people react more to anger than to calm rational scientific discussion. Emotion has more impact than logic.


I don't think the type of person who responds to emotion is much use in the struggle against those who control the media and can far more easily manipulate emotion than one or two of us can ever hope to. If you need emotion to convince people to take action you have in my option already admitted defeat by depending on baser instincts that can be counteracted by even baser assaults by the media and government.


It hits deep into the subconcious where that sinking suspicion that something is very wrong in the world, dwells.


People already know that there is something wrong with their world that's why they succumb to their baser instincts and seek temporary relief.

Read the following for a good summary ...

Why Are Americans So Angry?


You've got me all wrong. I don't want humanity extinguished. Just reduced.


There is absolutely no evidence , NON, that more humans must logically lead to environmental destruction. We have technologies that could turn this planet ( no matter how many billions more) in something quite wondrous protecting as much of the environment as we might choose to.


In any ecosystem where a species goes unchecked due to lack of predation, there are dire consequences.


Feel free to site your references as i don't remember predation being required for equilibrium to be reached. That being said we are not mindless animals that are forced to just react based on instinct and we are a truly negentropic force that can create as much order as we might like to.


Nature, war and disease are the only good population reducers we have left.


I don't see how a human being could say such a thing without it reflecting very negatively on his own humanity. If you believe such vapid nonsense you are the problem and will never be able to contribute to the solution.


And we can't even get war right. In WW2 millions died. We havent lost a fraction of that in current conflicts.


Talk about thought crimes....


Good, you've hit the point finally. HUMANS AFFECT THE CLIMATE.


Sure we do but is the effect noticeable on a global scale? Is it contributing in any meaningful way and is it cooling or warming the atmosphere in general? Those are questions that remains largely disputed.


If the climate is overheating, then the clear and obvious response is to do what is in our power to reduce that heating. If our affect on it is negligable as you would have us believe then we need to come up with ways to fix that too. Paint the planet white to increase reflectivity if thats what it takes.


Well that's if we have determined if global warming or cooling is beneficial or not to humanity as a hole. I don't think slight or even significant heating ( a few degrees over the next century) can be proved to be detrimental to civilization in general.


Originally posted by guyopitz
Yeah 10 billion of us in 20 years. But all the less adaptable species on earth will suffer for our arrogance.


We can not prove what would or would not have have happened in our absence and the universe has proven quite capable of causing whole sale destruction of it's own volition. Lets just say i consider wishing harm to any human being in 'preservation' of a uncaring environment as quite insane.


plants and animals cannot adapt to such rapid climate change. Humans cannot survive without the plants and the animals.


You would be surprised what plants and animals can survive or at least what some of they could. Considering what we can do with genetic engineering i am quite confident we can designed whatever we need had we chosen to simple destroy what we got without any effort. There exists technologies today that strongly suggest that we could produce whatever food we wanted by entirely artificial means had we chosen to do so.


Not unless your keen on the idea of mass regulated cannibalism. Soylent green anyone?


Fear mongering nonsense should best be left to the ignorant in my opinion.


his is fiction, but its a good estimate of changing our infrastructure to cleaner more efficient energy sources. lifeboat.com...


We have had workable technologies that extracted energy from the active vacuum a hundred years ago so there is no need for wasting our collective energy on solar or wind power.


I have the luxury of caring. Im living in the USA and life is good. All my needs are met. I have to care because the poverty stricken third world populace can't do anything about it.


I'm doing pretty well myself and don't want to change thus my interest in discovering if any of these 'end of the world' stories ( that has been consistently wrong since the 50's ) might have anything to do with reality or our immediate future. The third world would be able to help themselves had they been allowed to.


Its terrible that the USA is responsible for the majority of the human affect on GW


It is? Evidence?


yet those who have the least affect on GW will be affected the most by it in turn. How fair is that?


Where is the evidence that global warming ( if true) will have a net negative effect on third world or industrialized nations?

Stellar



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by revepelli
my first post, so please forgive any breaches of etiquette.

people spouting nonsense winds me up

people spouting nonsense about climate change is very very very dangerous


Very true hence my objections about so called global warming as result of human industrial activity.


a) 500,000 years of climate records - check out the vertical lines at the right of teh graph and explain how we have 30% more CO2 in the atmoshere than at any other time in the last 500,000 years... and then caluclate the odds of this happening bang on the industrail revolution and yet been unrelated [hint: v low chance]


First one has to show that such a increase in Carbon dioxide is in fact something that can affect our climate in any noticeable way. Why did the rise in Carbon dioxide atmospheric increases take place in the time frame were we still had global colling/dimming; pre- 1970?


"One of the great propaganda icons of the United Nations climate-change machine... is about to get swept away as junk science," writes Terence Corcoran "Financial Post 7/13/04, see www.sepp.org). On July 1, Michael E. Mann, one of the creators of the 1,000- year temperature chart published a corrigendum in Nature, acknowledging that "the listing of the `proxy' data set...contained several errors." After describing the errors, Mr. Mann said that "none of these errors affect our previously published results."

The Canadian researchers who pointed out the errors, Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre, stated that the claim that nothing had changed was "categorically false."

In a letter that Nature declined to publish, Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Australia, wrote: "The "corrected) Mann et al. graph shows that the northern hemisphere temperature index attained its highest values in the early 15th century, and that the 20th century warming cycle has so far only equalled a secondary warm peak that occurred late in the 15th century."

www.oism.org...



Actually, I did commemorate Earth Day the best way possible - by reading yet another scholarly study that debunks the notion our current climate is unusually hot, and getting hotter due to manmade greenhouse emissions. The latest study, from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (www.cfa.harvard.edu), carries the vernacular title 20th-Century Climate Not So Hot. Co-authored by Smithsonian astrophysicists Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon, Craig Idso and Sherwood Idso of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, and David Legates of the Center for Climate Research at the University of Delaware, it notes: "20th Century temperatures were generally cooler than during the medieval warmth."

The 20th century, contrary to the alarmism of environmentalists, was neither the warmest century in the past millennium, nor the one marked by the most severe weather. Belief that the globe is warming faster than ever before, and so fast that the rise threatens the environment, is the result of examining variations in temperature over too short a time span. The Medieval Warm Period, from approximately 800 to 1300 AD, was as much as 4 C warmer on average than today, worldwide, nearly as warm as the upper extreme of UN climate projections for the coming century. And the natural world did not implode, far from it. Greenland sustained agricultural colonies through much of this period. The seas teemed with fish. Wars were less common in Europe than during the later Middle Ages, in part because harvests were plentiful and less pressure existed for campaigns of conquest to acquire new lands and resources. Cathedral construction on a grand scale (a sign of relative affluence) boomed across Europe. Mesoamerica also flourished.

Remarkable in the Harvard-Smithsonian study is the depth of analysis it contains of the historical temperature record and its finding that the Medieval Warm Period was global, not merely confined to the North Atlantic region as some have argued.

www.oism.org...



b) get up to speed here, Jim Hansen is the man on this stuff... learn why the climate is regarded as an 'ornery beast' - a little nudge and it overreacts, badly


Little nudge? I would hardly call what the average volcano or comet does 'litte' nudges but lets leave that there. I don't see how he can have claimed to be a right as far back as 1988 as even with out current understanding of what goes on in our atmosphere these things are hard to decide on as is obvious by the vague claims normally made in peer reviewed articles. What we should do is hang those who pretend that the so called human caused global warming phenomenon is widely espoused or supported by those who do the actual studies.


and try this analogy for size:

take a party balloon and blow it up. the balloon is the earth. the 'skin' of the balloon is the atmosphere. the atmosphere is very very thin and we can easily destroy the balance held within it


I don't think this is the place or the time for party tricks. If you don't want to discuss what we can find in the science literature on this topic that's your choice but some of us have read a few papers and books on this issue.


and remember - highest human permanent is at about 14,000 feet altitude - so we can only live in a fraction of the atmosphere - we should take care of it...


We should obviously take care of the environment if it's destruction is going to impact us but needlessly hampering industrial activity while human beings are still starving is something i refuse to be a part of. Until scientist and their masters in government and banking circle's ensures a decent standard of living for every person on this planet i will not be interested in their horrible science and general fear mongering.


GW is real

never mind these theories that the NWO or whatever are maniopulating us with fear, question why we aren't been told the full truth...


You will find some truth in the media ( it's hard to stay anywhere near credible in your persistently lying about everything) but you will mostly have to do your own research and investigate any or all of the contradictions in this so called global warming 'fact' that makes such a mockery of the scientific method.

They are doing their best to bring about a new world order and all these dull witted scare stories ( peak oil, global warming, global cooling, mass starvation by 1995) will only increase in volume as their need to distract us from reality increases.

What you could do instead is investigate what sort of tools our governments now wields that may be able to affect the atmosphere where humanity are unlikely to.



NEWS BRIEF: "Malaysia to Battle Smog With Cyclones"
by Chen May Yee,
Staff Reporter of the Wall Street Journal
Thursday, November 13, 1997, page A19.

"KULA LUMPUR -- Malaysia's war on smog is about to get a new twist. The government wants to create man-made cyclones to scrub away the haze that has plagued Malaysia since July. 'We will use special technology to create an artificial cyclone to clean the air', said Datuk Law Hieng Ding, minister for science, technology and the environment. The plan calls for the use of new Russian technology to create cyclones -- the giant storms also known as typhoons and hurricanes -- to cause torrential rains, washing the smoke out of the air. The Malaysian cabinet and the finance minister have approved the plan, Datuk Law said. A Malaysian company, BioCure Sdn. Bhd., will sign a memorandum of understanding soon with a government-owned Russian party to produce the cyclone."

"Datuk Law declined to disclose the size of the cyclone to be generated, or the mechanism. 'The details I don't have', he said. He did say, though, that the cyclone generated would be 'quite strong'. Datuk Law also declined to disclose the price of creating the cyclone. But, he said, Malaysia doesn't have to pay if the project doesn't work."

WSJ-Malaysia to Battle Smog With Cyclones


BBC-Malaysia calls in Russian rainmakers



Those who doubt that Katrina, or any other hurricane, could be stopped—or created—can find substantiation in a long-forgotten article by Chen May Yee in the Nov. 13, 1997, issue of The Wall Street Journal.

The article recounts an offer by the Russians to aid Malaysia to create a typhoon to dissipate a pall of smoke that hung over the country—and still does—caused by the burning of large sections of the rain forests in Indonesia and Sumatra.

To quote from the article: Datuk Law Hieng Ding, Malaysia’s minister for science, technology and the environment at the time, said his country “would use special technology to create an artificial cyclone to clean the air.”

The article went on to say that a Malaysian company, BicCure Sdn. Bhd., would sign a memorandum of understanding with a government-owned Russian company to create a cyclone that would cause torrential rains and thus cleanse the air over Malaysia of the smoke and ash.

www.americanfreepress.net...




[edit on 14-1-2007 by StellarX]



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 02:50 AM
link   

"Q: Let me ask you specifically about last week's scare here in Washington, and what we might have learned from how prepared we are to deal with that (inaudible), at B'nai Brith.

A: Well, it points out the nature of the threat. It turned out to be a false threat under the circumstances. But as we've learned in the intelligence community, we had something called -- and we have James Woolsey here to perhaps even address this question about phantom moles. The mere fear that there is a mole within an agency can set off a chain reaction and a hunt for that particular mole which can paralyze the agency for weeks and months and years even, in a search. The same thing is true about just the false scare of a threat of using some kind of a chemical weapon or a biological one. There are some reports, for example, that some countries have been trying to construct something like an Ebola Virus, and that would be a very dangerous phenomenon, to say the least. Alvin Toeffler has written about this in terms of some scientists in their laboratories trying to devise certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic specific so that they could just eliminate certain ethnic groups and races; and others are designing some sort of engineering, some sort of insects that can destroy specific crops. Others are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves."

So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It's real, and that's the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, and that's why this is so important.

DoD News Briefing
Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen



FBIS Transcribed Text] MOSCOW. Aug 8 (Interfax) - The Russian State
Duma has expressed concern about the United States' program to develop a
qualitatively new type of weapon.
"Under the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP), the
U.S. is creating new integral geophysical weapons that may influence the
near-Earth medium with high-frequency radio waves," the State Duma said
in an appeal circulated on Thursday.
"The significance of this qualitative leap could be compared to the
transition from cold steel to fire arms, or from conventional weapons to
nuclear weapons. This new type of weapons differs from previous types in
that the near-Earth medium becomes at once an object of direct influence
and its component.

FAS-Russian parliament concerned about US plans to develop new weapon.



"Pick up any text book on hurricanes and it will tell you that the one place where hurricanes do not occur is the South Atlantic Ocean. The atmosphere does not provide enough spin near the surface to get them started and winds higher in the atmosphere tend to shear off any that do make a start. Hence, it was with some amazement that meteorologists watched the first ever recorded hurricane develop off the coast of Brazil in the last week of March."

Catarina hits Brazil



The director of the Russian geophysical observatory of the Russian Meteorological Service, A.Voyeikov, says that the process of making a weather forecast for Russia, the USA, Europe and Canada is much more complicated in comparison with other states. "Atmospheric processes are not stable on these territories, and cyclones may occur absolutely incidentally," Voyeikov said."

Modern technologies unable to predict weather changes



"CNN) -- Hurricanes aren't behaving like many of us are used to them behaving. They're bigger and meaner, and more numerous than many people have seen.
Charley, Frances, Ivan and Jeanne tore up parts of Florida last year. After tweaking Florida, Katrina and Rita are wreaking havoc this year along the Gulf Coast from Alabama to Texas.
But don't rush to blame it on global warming, experts warn.
Max Mayfield, director of the National Hurricane Center in Miami, told a Senate subcommittee on Tuesday that we're in a period of heightened hurricane activity that could last another decade or two."
CNN-It's a 'new era' of hurricanes.


Personally i know who to hold responsible for the strange weather we have been having the last few decades but if you want to let go of what your parents and their parents before them suffered so much to achieve that is your choice and hopefully just your loss. I am not going to give up what others worked so hard based on fear mongering and generally horrible science as spread by people who clearly know better than what they have chosen to tell us.

Stellar

[edit on 14-1-2007 by StellarX]




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join