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 Has Ended

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 12:35 AM
link   
Truth By Decree


Originally posted by loam
Based on the early indications of the IPCC's release tomorrow, it may be far less time than that.

If I could be reasonably assured that U.N. panels are inherently free of corruption, I might find this assertion more convincing.




posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
If I could be reasonably assured that U.N. panels are inherently free of corruption, I might find this assertion more convincing.



Are you asserting that is the case here?

Do you know how this report was produced?

I'd like to hear your theories on this one...



[edit on 2-2-2007 by loam]



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
If I could be reasonably assured that U.N. panels are inherently free of corruption, I might find this assertion more convincing.


I have yet to see any system free of corruption or infallible humans void of greed. What country has this? Do you have a more trustworthy source that wields as much influence as the IPCC/WMO and is a world consensus of the greatest climatological/meteorological minds on the planet?

Meanwhile, let's see what old Dr. Masters and Dr. Rood have to say:


Landmark climate change report coming Friday

What is the IPCC?

On February 2, 2007 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is scheduled to release the first of a series of reports that describe the current state of the Earth's climate, how it has changed, and how it is expected to change in the future. "Climate Change 2007" will be definitive and influential. Climate change touches every aspect of society, and there is already controversy associated with the release. This is the first of a series of blogs about climate and climate change; it discusses the process of development of these official assessments.

First, the IPCC is not a research organization, but relies upon research performed and reported by scientists from all over the world. This underlying research is based on observations and the development of testable propositions to determine cause and effect in the behavior of the observations. Sometimes the propositions can be tested with experiments, but more often climate scientists use models to predict the behavior of the observations. Therefore, like weather forecasting, the success or failure of model predictions reveal our level of understanding.

Part of the scientific process is the ability of independent researchers to investigate the observations and extract information. If their conclusions converge, then the independent nature of the investigations adds accountability to the process. That is, there are checks and balances which constantly challenge, check, and re-check the conclusions of individual scientists. The IPCC assesses this body of scientific literature; it is not just the research of the United States; it is the research of the world. It is research hardened by the competition of ideas and honed by the survival of the successful ideas.

The scientists who write the IPCC reports use exquisite rigor. The reports are written by experts drawn from around the world, selected to assure the representation of the members of the United Nations. Draft reports are then reviewed by experts who were not authors of the report. Then there is review by government officials involved in policy making. All told, there are more than 1000 contributing authors, and more than 2000 independent reviewers. All comments are considered in the revisions that lead to the production of the final document. The time commitment is enormous, and the result is a document which is based on the facts of observation and predictions which have been scrutinized to the highest level possible.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

We can go by their track record too and compare what they said to 17 years ago to what has transpired. They actually vastly underated the artic melting off this fast.

www.ipcc.ch...

[edit on 2-2-2007 by Regenmacher]



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 04:46 AM
link   
Over the course of history there has been only one constant and that is there is no constant. Last summer, here in Texas was almost unbearable and heat-related deaths sky-rocketed. Then again, I saw REAL and HUGE snowflakes for the first time in my life today having been born and raised here. I think the issue here is not warming or cooling. It's weather extremes.

Surely this has happened to the earth before. It's whether or not it'll wipe us out that is to be seen. Novels could be written about 'Global Warming' and it's media hype and political usage for effect on public opinion. I think the element of lack of human control is what's really frightening.

I wouldn't make an absolute statement just yet.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
Truth By Decree


Originally posted by loam
Based on the early indications of the IPCC's release tomorrow, it may be far less time than that.

If I could be reasonably assured that U.N. panels are inherently free of corruption, I might find this assertion more convincing.




Psssh. U.N. panels? Corrupt?



No way, mahn.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 05:07 AM
link   
False Consensus


Originally posted by Regenmacher
Do you have a more trustworthy source that wields as much influence as the IPCC/WMO and is a world consensus of the greatest climatological/meteorological minds on the planet?

No, I don't, and that's my point.

The IPCC is not "policy neutral" and has functioned as a political advocacy group since its formation.

I also don't trust the U.N.

At all.

Big Tobacco proved that money can buy "science", and I am very suspicious of the way the massive monetary considerations of the Global Warming agenda are repeatedly and dishonestly downplayed by those who both promote it and stand to gain from it.

Substituting "consensus" for proof is unconvincing. "Peer pressure" doesn't impress me. Evangelizing a leap of faith and deriding reasonable skepticism is for charlatans and hucksters.

I prefer critical thinking and making up my own mind on the issues rather than having opinions dictated to me by governments and those of my colleagues who should know better than that.

How ironic it is that on a site dedicated to questioning official stories that so many of my fellow members see fit not only to insist that we trust government sources, but habitually insult and denigrate anyone who would question them.

What I have seen since I first became aware of the Global Warming Question over two decades ago are numerous warning signs that the "debate" surrounding it is rife with deceit and manipulation. As time has passed, these warning signs have only continued to become more obvious to those willing to simply see them for what they are.

Scare tactics, bullying, distortion, logical fallacies and hyperbole are not the hallmarks of truth.

Thus I remain skeptical of the claims surrounding Global Warming.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 06:59 AM
link   
Open any earth or physical science book and the first sentence dealing with this subject will likely be something about Earth's climate is dynamic...that is ever changing.

The idea behind global warming is sure fire because every year is a deviation from the mean temps. Why? Well, it has to do with the term mean temps. Thats just it. The temperature from which we are deviating is an average. The reality is that the geologic period in which we live is one of the most unchanged in the history of this planet. But, its still going to change.

It will change whether the human race is here or not. It will continue to change long after this political weapon called the global warming has long been forgotten about. Like many ideologies of the human race, it serves to give a sense that we matter and we can have that affect and therefore have the power to change it. Its a far cry from the actual mechnisms that control this planet's ability to sustain life and regulate itself. Its human ego and it give those who are bored with their own pathetic lives a cause to feel validated. So, I say let them run with it. Let them march and protest. It might actually do some good to the localized pollution problems, who knows? But, in the end the climate will do what it has always done and will always do...Change.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
How ironic it is that on a site dedicated to questioning official stories that so many of my fellow members see fit not only to insist that we trust government sources, but habitually insult and denigrate anyone who would question them.



Thank you!

This is exactly what I've been trying to say all along. As words, internet sites, statistics, means, averages, can be twisted...so can mankinds sense of what he or she is doing be twisted. Everyone has their price and scientists are no exception especially considering that clearly if you want to be rich, you DONT become a scientist.

There's no doubt in anyone's mind that mankind is affecting our planet...I think we can ALL agree on that in whatever degree it may be...whether it be pollution, smog, ecosystem breakdown, toxic runoff, aerosols, CFC's, name your "mankind anamoly du jour"...I think we can ALSO all agree that we NEED to cleanup this planet...preserve it's resources for generations to come...start rebuilding it so that all of our generations can enjoy it...but the harsh reality of it is, unless we ALL agree to start living off the land without our big screen TV's without our BMW's and Mercedes, without our comfortable living quarters, without our HVAC systems, without our jobs to generate income, without our comfy chairs and large desks outfitted with the top of the line computer systems that pull up google pages in blazingly fast speed by which to make these posts and for you guys out there who love to quote millions and millions of "alleged" accurate references; all we'd really be leaving our generations would be sticks and stones and fear...so you're damn right I'm not just going to sit back, accept what a group of climatic scientists say about how MY ENTIRE lifestyle OUR entire lifestyle has to change so drastically without a barrage of challenges and a helluva fight...there had BETTER be certainty... not the "we have reason to believe" statements that are rampant in almost every source.



AB1



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 09:23 AM
link   
Majic

You have no idea how much I hope your position to be the correct one. But…


Originally posted by Majic
False Consensus

How ironic it is that on a site dedicated to questioning official stories that so many of my fellow members see fit not only to insist that we trust government sources, but habitually insult and denigrate anyone who would question them.



Given the methodology as described by Regenmacher’s link and other sources, it’s hard to imagine how large-scale abuse would be possible in this process.

Skepticism is all good and well, but at what point does that convert into unreasonable denial?



Originally posted by Majic
Big Tobacco proved that money can buy "science", and I am very suspicious of the way the massive monetary considerations of the Global Warming agenda are repeatedly and dishonestly downplayed by those who both promote it and stand to gain from it.


Here is the latest on that front.




Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study

Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.
Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
More…



Where is the evidence for large scale manipulation of the participants in the IPCC report?

Give me even a colorable argument for the possibility, and I’ll be all ears.


Originally posted by alphabetaone
...but the harsh reality of it is, unless we ALL agree to start living off the land without our big screen TV's without our BMW's and Mercedes, without our comfortable living quarters, without our HVAC systems, without our jobs to generate income, without our comfy chairs and large desks outfitted with the top of the line computer systems that pull up google pages in blazingly fast speed by which to make these posts and for you guys out there who love to quote millions and millions of "alleged" accurate references; all we'd really be leaving our generations would be sticks and stones and fear...


How did you arrive at this conclusion?



The report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a science document describing what scientists say is now happening and forecasting what will happen. The report recommends no actions to slow global warming.

Link.



Seems to me you’ve bought into some of the “fear” yourself.



Originally posted by alphabetaone
so you're damn right I'm not just going to sit back, accept what a group of climatic scientists say about how MY ENTIRE lifestyle OUR entire lifestyle has to change so drastically without a barrage of challenges and a helluva fight...there had BETTER be certainty... not the "we have reason to believe" statements that are rampant in almost every source.


Actually:




In the strongest language it has ever used, a United Nations panel says global warming is "very likely" caused by human activities…

The phrase "very likely" indicates a 90% certainty. The last IPCC report, issued five years ago, said it was "likely" that human activity was at fault, indicating a certainty of 66%.

Many scientists had argued during the editing process that the report should say it is "virtually certain" that human activities are causing global warming. That would indicate a 99% certainty….

[A] new study reported Thursday in the online version of the journal Science said that the IPCC report actually significantly underestimated both the extent of warming and the extent of the rise in sea levels.

Link.



If you are going to provide “a barrage of challenges and a helluva fight”, I hope you have something better than the equivalent of closing your eyes, plugging your ears with your index fingers, and screaming….”NAW…NAW…NAW…NAW…”

freethoughts.org..." border=0>


Trust me, I’d prefer you were right...but give me something more compelling than your general denials.

Best of luck.


[edit on 2-2-2007 by loam]



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 09:41 AM
link   
Have you ever watched "An Inconvenient Truth"? You should watch that movie before you make outrageous claims about global warming ending. Also, you might want to do some research of your own if you don't believe any of the information that is set forth before you. Yet, it's only a suggestion, not a command.

==> THIS IS DIRECTED TOWARDS THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS THREAD

[edit on 2-2-2007 by AlphaAnuOmega]



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlphaAnuOmega
Have you ever watched "An Inconvenient Truth"? You should watch that movie before you make outrageous claims about global warming ending. Also, you might want to do some research of your own if you don't believe any of the information that is set forth before you. Yet, it's only a suggestion, not a command.

==> THIS IS DIRECTED TOWARDS THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS THREAD

[edit on 2-2-2007 by AlphaAnuOmega]


A former Vice-President and Senator who has ties to Oil companies and selling off the naval oil reserves has so many qualifications to declare that Global Warming is what's ruining this country...check your sources before you promote something Alpha.




Occidental's planned drilling of the Elk Hills doesn't only threaten the memory of the Kitanemuk. Environmentalists say a rare species of fox, lizard and the kangaroo rat would also be threatened by Oxy's plans. A lawsuit has been filed under the Endangered Species Act. But none of that has given pause to Occidental or the politician who helped engineer the sale of the drilling rights to the federally-owned Elk Hills. That politician is Al Gore. Gore recommended that the Elk Hills be sold as part of his 1995 "Reinventing Government" National Performance Review program. Gore-confidant (and former campaign manager) Tony Cohelo served on the board of directors of the private company hired to assess the sale's environmental consequences. The sale was a windfall for Oxy. Within weeks of the announced purchase Occidental stock rose ten percent.


www.corpwatch.org...



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam

Trust me, I’d prefer you were right...but give me something more compelling than your general denials.

Best of luck.


[edit on 2-2-2007 by loam]


I'm not certain why I have to keep repeating this but I feel it incumbent on me to do so..I'm not denying ANYTHING at all..I'm right in the middle...that EITHER CAMP CAN POTENTIALLY BE RIGHT.

I'm not afraid of climate change in even the SLIGHTEST...what fear I DO have is that mankind WILL change things for the worse without just cause..and a series of "tests" by so-called "scientists" who's best position can possibly be "that we believe" simply because they're trying to measure a lifecycle of climatic change that's happened over many many millenia based on a drop of water on the head of a pin geochronologically speaking...is not NEAR enough to convince me that life needs to change drastically.

And the best of luck to you too Loam



AB1



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 10:10 AM
link   
CAConrad0825, have you watched the movie or do you refuse to do so? If you watch the entire movie you will understand that Al Gore is not that same person he used to be. People change. Why would Al Gore promote not polluting, against the will of the Bush Administration? It's not for his own personal gain. He's been involved in much of the US Conservation programs.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone
I'm not certain why I have to keep repeating this but I feel it incumbent on me to do so..I'm not denying ANYTHING at all..I'm right in the middle...that EITHER CAMP CAN POTENTIALLY BE RIGHT.


I hear you, alphabetaone, but given the way things are lining up, can you honestly argue the “potentials” are equally weighted or even close?

Like I said earlier, skepticism is all good and well, but at what point does that convert into unreasonable denial?

Please, show me something more.


Originally posted by alphabetaone
…not NEAR enough to convince me that life needs to change drastically.


Again, I don’t know how you arrived at this conclusion.

Drastic changes only come to the unprepared.


In fact, that is the problem with this whole debate.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume the science is correct on this issue. How do you really think all of the “drastic” changes you claim might be required could actually be implemented?

Seems to me, if we are missing the boat on the reality of global climate change, the longer we wait, the more “drastic” things will become.

Food for thought.


Originally posted by alphabetaone
And the best of luck to you too Loam


Thank you.

I sincerely hope we don’t all need it.



[edit on 2-2-2007 by loam]



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Well, I would disagree based on the weather in Hungary.
And based on one posters experience in Canada, it seems to be global. (they are kind of far from us here in Hungary.
)

In all seriousness though, no snow this winter...at least non that can compare to last year or the winter I remember when I was here 10 years ago, which was even worse.

Today was like spring. I was out without a jacket, and its the 2nd of February.
This is definitely NOT normal weather, nor does it seem isolated.

Last year I heard about global warming, and I wish I could say I felt it.
(Coming from Atlanta to Hungary was a harsh weather shift...all that snow!)

But I can honestly say, I see it myself here...and its something it appears others around the globe are noticing.

Quite frankly there are a couple of things:

- I just saw on the BBC news today that the governments in Europe are taking global warming serious and that it is real, and that it is not natural, being caused by us. (so tack on some tax on those gas guzzling vehichles...at least it seems to be the case - or will be - in the U.K. .... more money for them.


Anyway...I was amazed. People now are actually believing it, its now 'official' and all I can say is that 10 years ago when we heard the effects of deforestation, etc. everyone sits back and goes, "nah, not here maw". And now people are freaked. (albeit not all, the original poster tends to disagree with trends, which if fine.)

Personally, to what extent does it matter.
I love warm weather.


Putting that aside, lets look seriously at the situation...do we want an ice age?
I know balance is the key. Personally, if we act wisely with nature, I have no problem with a shift in the temperature. And again, if people say, "dude, its not like that, its spinning out of control"...then where were you when this was discussed years back? Laughing with the rest saying "it can never happen here cause we believe what we are told?"


Point is, yes, I have seen an intersting pattern here in Hungary that cannot go unnoticed. And some interesting weather patterns with the strong winds, etc.

Where is it going? Who knows. I find it ironic that 'governments' now seem to care.
Hmmm, anyway.

Peace

dAlen



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Conversion Point


Originally posted by loam
Skepticism is all good and well, but at what point does that convert into unreasonable denial?

In my case, at least, skepticism constitutes neither acceptance nor denial of a proposition, but suspension of judgment in the absence of proof, intellectual honesty and acknowledgment of human fallibility.

Put another way: I don't want to claim certainty where it doesn't exist.

Hence my skepticism.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgainstSecrecy


I disagree!

Did you notice, that the weather is going crazy? In Europe our last summertimes are hotter than normal, our winters are no winters anymore, they're to warm...more like spring. Flowers and animals are behaving like it's springtime.

And what about that hurricaneseasos in the US (not talking about the 2006 season...was below average)? Even we in Europe had at least one hurricane.

We also had several tornados here. That's not normal for Europe.

Even the "scientists" are not denying global warming anymore.


Reuters link
CNN link to Hurricane Kyrill


Sorry, but in my opinion this sounds more like disinfo


edit: fixed links


[edit on 1-2-2007 by AgainstSecrecy]

I'd like to add something interesting i've found on the web:
Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study

"Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.[...]"

click the link to continue reading.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 11:51 AM
link   
As you will see and research, if you would like to know the truth, the US government has been supressing documents since the early '70's on climate change. The French govenment has a lot of information on all sorts of topics that the US citizens have come to be unaware of since they are jaded into thinking that the US is secure and we are always right. This case is not so, global warming has not just been affecting the US, it's affecting everything, everybody. Florida and California, known for having warm, temperate weather, has now experienced snow storms. This is not common and will persist. If you will do research into what caused ice ages, you will learn that by diluting the ocean you can stop these currents that keep weather patterns. The US has been producing more CO2 than any other countries because US Citizens are ignorant to the fact that everything they do effects the whole world. We waste more than China and India...those countries' populations are extremely larger than ours. We have come to realize our mistakes after decades of abuse to the environment. Now everyone is hopping on the bandwagon to conserve, when all along they could have saved money by conserving instead of buying big gas guzling SUV's to drive around maybe one other person. Our country's mindest needs to change along with our habits or we and our future generations will pay the price.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
Put another way: I don't want to claim certainty where it doesn't exist.

Hence my skepticism.


Fair enough.

However, using your model, is there really anything we can know with certainty?

Seems like a highly impracticable world view to me. With such indecision, what justifies even taking the next breath?





posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Uncertainty Principle


Originally posted by loam
However, using your model, is there really anything we can know with certainty?

The only thing you can ever be sure of is that you can never really be sure of anything.


On a more practical level, when I see things that make me suspicious -- such as people handing me a cup of kool-aid and demanding that I drink it -- I give myself permission to Just Say No.

I don't think Global Warming is as absolute or binary in nature as it's being represented. Nonetheless, just as with any evangelical religion, refusal to embrace the faith and follow the herd is interpreted as "denial".

That alone is cause for concern, and causes for concern only continue to increase over time.

I've seen this game played before, and I'm not buying into it.

The fact that this offends certain people only proves my point.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join