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 Debate Turns Ugly

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 09:58 AM
link   
We are finding drowned polar bears because they don't have the endurance to swim from one ice sheet to the next because the ice is melting. Entire sections of ice the size of jamaica are disappearing before our eyes.

Sure the earth has warming periods followed by sharp cooling periods. But to say that we are having no effect on the planet is just plain ignorant. Don't get me wrong, I'm a republican, well a 50s republican because the current republicans are more "liberal" than the left wing. Big government big spending? C'mon!

The Americans on here are just reinforcing the worlds view of us being backwards by believing global warming isn't happening. Please don't embarass me further, most of all please don't embarass yourselves, deny ignorance, swim past the political agenda and think critically. This stuff is really happening.

Am I an alarmist? NO. I am a realist.

Besides, regardless of whether or not global warming is indeed human induced or not, isn't it pretty concrete that pollution is bad for the environment?

I don't know about you, but I want my children to have a lush world to live in. Global warming or not, fossil fuels are not helping.

Cut the political crap and get real.


[edit on 31-1-2007 by Galvatron]




posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Galvatron

Besides, regardless of whether or not global warming is indeed human induced or not, isn't it pretty concrete that pollution is bad for the environment?


The whole irony of the debate.

Everything we need to do to reduce carbon emissions and to prepare ourselves for the consequences of climate change, are things we should already be doing anyway.

So what's the problem? Even if you don't think electric faults cause fires, is that a reason not to have a smoke alarm or extinguishers in the building? Or, put another way, one would hope you would have alarms and extinguishers installed regardless are your believe in the likelihood of an electric fire.

I sometimes wonder if the whole thing isn't just a test by the Galactic Brotherhood to see if we've reached the level of intelligence necessary to join them. If so, we've failed dismally ...... Whilst we argue and argue and argue over whether fires start due to electrical faults, no alarms and no extinguishers get fitted.

Oops, someone dropped a match.....



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by brEaDITOR
Gore presented a lot of data in his film "An Inconvenient Truth". As a scientist, I tend to agree with him.


I agree. I actually watched the film today, as a matter of fact.

I think he had alot of great points especially with the charts and pictures he showed. It changed my entire view of Global Warming.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gatordone
It seems to me…


Well, there is a scientific approach.


Originally posted by Gatordone
"scientific consensus" which doesn't exist.


Mind giving me the facts on this one?


Originally posted by Gatordone
There is no such thing as "scientific" consensus, is there? Unless you have a political agenda to support.


I forgot that one requires a “political agenda” in order to assert that water is wet or that an absence of oxygen causes suffocation.

Whew! I’m glad you cleared that up for me.



Originally posted by Gatordone
As if the left were completely incapable of the fear tactics you've been trained to charge the right with.


Apparently, you know nothing of my politics. How certain are you that I’m from the “left”?


Originally posted by Gatordone
How will we fix this GW Problem?


In my view, we have two GW problems…
But I’m quite sure you will use that to assert I’m from the left as well.



Originally posted by Gatordone
The gov't will save us! A completely liberal point of view to shut down industry and ruin economies that have the unfair advantage of not being socialist in nature.


Can you show me where the majority advocate the “shutting down of industry” and the “ruin of economies”?

And, can you also provide me an explanation, from your far superior “conservative” mind, how a failure to account for the cost of the use (or abuse) of natural resources is an economically conservative principle and not just a vast redistribution of wealth scheme?

I eagerly await your sagely view on the matter.



[edit on 31-1-2007 by loam]



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by enjoies05

Originally posted by brEaDITOR
Gore presented a lot of data in his film "An Inconvenient Truth". As a scientist, I tend to agree with him.


I agree. I actually watched the film today, as a matter of fact.

I think he had alot of great points especially with the charts and pictures he showed. It changed my entire view of Global Warming.


Since you like charts so much heres one from Stanford:

solar-center.stanford.edu...

Looks like there might be a slight connection with the Earths temperature and the Sun. Just maybe. If I buy a Prius will the Sun stop heating up?



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 10:38 AM
link   
I think the main thing here is generally getting lost on americans. Its not that difficult. I don't know how to be clearer than the smoke detector analogy.

Just because it may or may not be causing a problem right now doesnt mean its a good idea.

What if the sun is the cause of global warming? Does that mean we should stop cutting back on emissions?



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Galvatron
I think the main thing here is generally getting lost on americans. Its not that difficult. I don't know how to be clearer than the smoke detector analogy.

Just because it may or may not be causing a problem right now doesnt mean its a good idea.

What if the sun is the cause of global warming? Does that mean we should stop cutting back on emissions?


Sure, but thats a completely different issue than using statistics and charts and fear of impending doom to force some will over the poupulation.

Rahter than approach it from the perspective that only grand government, taxation and legislation can save us try a less dramatic approach. Maybe no auto tax on a hybrid. Or cutting the tax burden on companies that fall well below a certain level of emission. Instead of punishment try reward. Instead of shouting "We're all gonna die!" try a more Woodsy the Owl approach of "this planet is the only one we've got." And, most important of all, keep it out of politics! Or all of us on Exxons payroll will have to begin claiming all of the other guys are on Toyotas payroll. (Largest auto manufacturer, converting to all hybrids.) The logic is the same.

If id never have to pay auto taxes again Id go buy a hybrid right after work.
But thatll never happen. Governments federal and state have all grown too fat and wouldnt give up that meal ticket for anything.

[edit on 31-1-2007 by thisguyrighthere]



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 10:55 AM
link   
I agree with that.

I think that the politics should be completely left out. Its mindless bickering over who gets the spoils of the agenda.

I agree with you in that positive reenforcement is more attractive than punishment.

I guess I'm just questioning this whole debate. Should this really be a political agenda? Is it ethically wrong to use the environment as political leverage? Because when it comes down to it, its really a question of common sense, which politics has a bad habit of arguing. I really wish politics in this country had the same kind of oversight that corporations do. Then this whole thing wouldnt even be a political argument, it would be purely scientific.

[edit on 31-1-2007 by Galvatron]



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam

Originally posted by Gatordone
"scientific consensus" which doesn't exist.


Mind giving me the facts on this one?


A "consensus" is a general agreement or opinion. (Oxford Desk Dictionary)
Science is a branch of knowledge involving systematic observation and experiment. (Oxford Desk Dictionary).

Now when there was "scientific consensus" that the world was flat was it scientific? Even if there was consensus? Are you sure the planet didn't just turn spherical when the worlds scientists finally agreed?

There is NO correlation between science and consensus.



Originally posted by Gatordone
There is no such thing as "scientific" consensus, is there? Unless you have a political agenda to support.



I forgot that one requires a “political agenda” in order to assert that water is wet or that an absence of oxygen causes suffocation.

Whew! I’m glad you cleared that up for me.

That's just silly...


Originally posted by Gatordone
As if the left were completely incapable of the fear tactics you've been trained to charge the right with.



Apparently, you know nothing of my politics. How certain are you that I’m from the “left”?

I'm not talking about "your" politics. I'm observing the politics of the issue.


Originally posted by Gatordone
How will we fix this GW Problem?



In my view, we have two GW problems…
But I’m quite sure you will use that to assert I’m from the left as well.

That's cute. I actually noticed that when I abbreviated it...


Originally posted by Gatordone
The gov't will save us! A completely liberal point of view to shut down industry and ruin economies that have the unfair advantage of not being socialist in nature.



Can you show me where the majority advocate the “shutting down of industry” and the “ruin of economies”?

Have you actually read the Kyoto Treaty?


And, can you also provide me an explanation, from your far superior “conservative” mind, how a failure to account for the cost of the use (or abuse) of natural resources is an economically conservative principle and not just a vast redistribution of wealth scheme?

I eagerly await your sagely view on the matter.



The premise of this question is on shaky ground. What cost? Abuse? That every scenario to "fix the problem" is as obviously inconsequential as the gross abuse of our natural resources has been is reason to stop any and all governments from unnecessarily limiting the freedoms of men. Unless the governments DO have a reason for limiting the freedoms of men...

Cigarettes are also causing global warming you know? We are so full of ourselves to assume that we are so consequential to a planet that's been here millions of years- going through these cycles all by itself the whole time.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 11:11 AM
link   
I still don't believe that global warming is man-made, or influenced by us at more than 5%. I'm glad to see some other people are finally waking up to the truth.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gatordone
A "consensus" is a general agreement or opinion. (Oxford Desk Dictionary)
Science is a branch of knowledge involving systematic observation and experiment. (Oxford Desk Dictionary).

Now when there was "scientific consensus" that the world was flat was it scientific? Even if there was consensus? Are you sure the planet didn't just turn spherical when the worlds scientists finally agreed?

There is NO correlation between science and consensus.




Ok… with that logic, I’m a little more clear with who I’m dealing with…

“Consensus” does not necessarily bring about “science”, but “science” can reasonably bring “consensus”.

Is it your world view that any fact becomes invalidated if consensus is attached to it?


Moreover, are you asserting that the science of today is equivalent to the science practiced before the 1st century AD?



Originally posted by Gatordone
There is no such thing as "scientific" consensus, is there? Unless you have a political agenda to support.


Originally posted by loam
I forgot that one requires a “political agenda” in order to assert that water is wet or that an absence of oxygen causes suffocation.

Whew! I’m glad you cleared that up for me.



That's just silly...


Which? Your statement or mine?


Originally posted by Gatordone
Have you actually read the Kyoto Treaty?


I have.

Have you?

That of course is not to say I don’t have my own issues with the treaty. But can you kindly walk me through how you arrived at the conclusion that 100% compliance with the treaty would lead to a ”shut down of industry and ruin economies”?


Originally posted by Gatordone

Originally posted by loam
And, can you also provide me an explanation, from your far superior “conservative” mind, how a failure to account for the cost of the use (or abuse) of natural resources is an economically conservative principle and not just a vast redistribution of wealth scheme?

I eagerly await your sagely view on the matter.


The premise of this question is on shaky ground. What cost? Abuse?


Whether on a local or global scale, if a business damages the environment, who bears the expense?

For example, if I run a dry cleaning business and dump hazardous materials out the back door that subsequently leach into the ground water, are you saying there is no expense to those who drink the water?



Originally posted by Gatordone
We are so full of ourselves to assume that we are so consequential to a planet that's been here millions of years- going through these cycles all by itself the whole time.


Is that science or consensus?



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Having written on this subject several times before, I will now do so again.
1) Meteorologists can barely predict the weather 5 days in advance and get it right - but they expect us to believe that they can predict 100 years into the future using computer models (just a sophisticated guess really) - and hey, guess what? a computer model is dependant on the INPUT - by people whose funding is dependant on proving GW exists
2) Many of the scientists supporting global warming, were 30 years ago supporting the theory of an approaching ice age - and guess what? the funding dried up because it was shown as bunkum, so the goalposts were moved, and the same scientists now recieve funding for research into global warming (side note - there is more evidence to support the theory of an ice age than supports man-made GW)
3) The natural world (what we aren't part of that?) is responsible for more greenhouse gasses than mankind. Termites for example (not to mention bovine species) produce methane (a more potent greenhouse gas) in quantities far more abundant than man produces CO2 (the best guess increase in CO2 in the next 100 years is 60 parts per million)
ahhhh I hear you cry, the insects and animals are just being their natural selves - WELL NEWSFLASH PEOPLE, SO IS MANKIND, it is the nature of all living organisms to try and structure their environment to suit their needs, and we are top of the food chain.....
4) Go to the GISS site and d/l all the info from weather stations (in arctic area's) into spreadsheets, then look at the trends and mean increases - it is not as much as we are being told
5) weather stations in and around cities are unreliable sources for historical data, we have better equipment these days, and the readings are also not being weighted for the urban heat island effect.
6) there are over 144,000 known glaciers in the world - a tiny percentage of these are receding - many are expanding
7) finally, who the hell is stupid enough to believe al gore ffs. I love these debates where everyone hates the governments and politicians, until they say something you believe in. Don't forget, they also had scientists telling us about the WMD's in Iraq

I have no agenda on GW, i just wish the green propaganda machine would let other voices be heard so that we could have a rational debate - instead, we have "un-believers" shouted down and ridiculed - a couple of hundred years ago they would have wanted them burnt as heretics.......




posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 11:59 AM
link   
The government appointed Stern Report warned of the huge cosrt to humanity of global warming. In its wake newspapers and television news were full of dire predictions of the world economy crashing, millions dying or being made homeless as a result of drought, famine and floods and London, New York and Tokyo together with other coastal cities sinking beneath the rising sea waters. Another report announced that all sea food will disappear in 50 years.

There are a number of possibilities about all this. The main ones are these:
* Global warming is real and caused by human activity (mainly burning fossil fuels-coal oil and gas). Therefore governments need to take urgent action to save the world from catastrophe.

* Global warming is real but the cause is not certain. It may be the result of solar activity and part of a cycle of warming and cooling of the earth's temperature. In this case there is nothing governments can do about it.

*Global warming is a decpetion being used by those who wish to bring in a world government. They are frightening people into submission to their plans.

Lets look at the issues.

1. GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL AND CAUSED BY HUMAN ACTIVITY
According to the UN backed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) global temperatures might increase between 1.4 and 5.8 deg C (2.5-10.5 F) between 1990 and 2100. An increase in global temperatures can in turn cause other changes, including a rising sea level and changes in the amount and pattern of rainfall. These changes may increase the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, such as floods, droughts, heat waves, hurricanes and tornados. Other consequences include lower agricultural yields, glacial retreat, reduced summer stream flows, the extinction of large numbers of species and an increase in organisms carrying disease.
The American Meteorological Society adopted a statement by their council in 2003 saying: 'Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases...Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and social systems. It is a long term problem that requires a long term perspective. Important decisions confront current and future national and world leaders.'
Rallies to save the planet have taken place around the world and in London a demonstration by Stop Climate Chaos demanded that the government acts against the threat of GW. Tony Blair declared it 'the most important report on the future published by this government in its time in office.' Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, told him in talks at Downing St that tackling climate change will be a priority for the German presidency of the G8 group of industrialised countries in 2007. The Foreign Secretary of the UK, Margaret Beckett told an audience in Delhi that the Indian sub-continent could face a combination of drought and rising sea levels- devestating crop yields and forcing millions to flee their homes- as a result of global temperatures.

2. GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL BUT MAY BE CAUSED BY THE SUN
A minority of scientists are saying that climate changes such as GW may be due to changes in the sun rather than to the release of greenhouse gases on Earth. The sun provides all the energy that drives our climate, but it is not the constant star it might seem. Careful stdies over the last 20 years show that its overall brightness and energy output increases slightly as sunspot activity rises to the peak of its 11 year cycle. The sun is currently at its most active for 300 years. This cycle could be followed by cooling and a mini ice age.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
I have no agenda on GW




Really? Your response left me with a different impression.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 12:13 PM
link   
try reading all of the last paragraph instead of quoting part of one sentence out of context



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 12:16 PM
link   
3. GLOBAL WARMING IS A DECPTION
There are those who are even more sceptical on this isue. Christopher Monckton wrote an article in the Sunday Telegraph (5/11/06) entitled 'Don't believe it'. He began by suggesting the 'climate change scare is less about saving the planet than, in Jacques Chirac's chilling phrase, 'creating world government'.'
He gives evidence of how the UN falsified information about the problem through its agency The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPSS). He quotes David Deming, a geoscientist at the University of Oklahoma, who wrote an afticle reconstructing North American temperatures from bore-hole data. This gained him credibility with the IPCC who asked him to to contribute to their research. Deming said, 'They thought that I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. One of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing e-mail that said 'We've got to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period'.'
The Medieval Warm Period is a well documented fact of history, showing that during this time temperatures were about 3 degrees warmer than they are today. According to Monckton, 'Then there were no glaciers in the Andes: today, they're there. There were Viking farms farms in Greenland: now they're under permafrost. There was little ice at the North Pole: a Chinese naval squadron sailed around the Arctic in 1421 and found none...Data from 6000 boreholes worldwide showed global temperatures were higher in the Middle Ages than now.'

Following this period temperatures fell to way below present levels. The 17th & 18th centuries experienced the 'Little Ice Age' when the Thames at London Bridge froze so solidly that a Frost Fair could be held in 1607 complete with a tent city set up on the river itself and offering a number of amusements including ice bowling.
The original IPCC report commissioned in 1996 showed a 1000 year graph showing correctly that temperature in the Middle Ages was warmer than today. But the 2001 report contained a new graph showing no medieval warm period and a uniform temperature until the onset of the industrial age when it began to rise. This graph wrongly concluded that the 20th century was the warmest for 1000 years. This information shows that history is being deliberately falsified by a UN agency.
In the end, whether global warming is real or not, it is an ideal issue to use to bring the nations together in some kind of world government.

Please feel free to look up the phrase Medieval Warm Period on gogle or whatever search engine, and see this for yourself.

Shalom



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 12:28 PM
link   
The Ozone layer has been damaged to the fridegerants we've been throwing into it for the last decades, and yes the climate has been affected,
and yes the sun is also getting hotter, so both sides are right, so let's not put the blame on only 1 side.

[edit on 31-1-2007 by bartholomeo]



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 12:29 PM
link   
I'm from the UK by the way



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski

try reading all of the last paragraph instead of quoting part of one sentence out of context


It was the first half of your post that left me that impression.

That *IS* context.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 12:38 PM
link   
I'm still wading through your posts, but...


Originally posted by Lucius Driftwood
The original IPCC report commissioned in 1996 showed a 1000 year graph showing correctly that temperature in the Middle Ages was warmer than today. But the 2001 report contained a new graph showing no medieval warm period and a uniform temperature until the onset of the industrial age when it began to rise. This graph wrongly concluded that the 20th century was the warmest for 1000 years. This information shows that history is being deliberately falsified by a UN agency.


Kindly show me the links to the two graphs in question.




top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join