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.

 

How ridiculous is Global Warming?

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 09:50 AM
link   
This is hilarious...

quote.bloomberg.com

This issue is going to get much worse before it gets better. I'm talking about the insane reaction to the Global Warming HYPE, not the environmental cycles the Earth's evolution naturally endures...



mod edit, format link

[edit on 5-3-2007 by DontTreadOnMe]




posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gatordone
I'm talking about the insane reaction to the Global Warming HYPE, not the environmental cycles the Earth's evolution naturally endures...


Or, indeed, the undeniable changes to climate caused by human activity - and no, I'm not talking carbon emissions


I agree with you about the hype and related nonsense though



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Darwin awards will be served with popcorn for the luddites.

216 Million Americans Are Scientifically Illiterate (Part I) ATS



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Right on Regenmacher, good point. Does anyone remember back in the '50's they didn't think nuclear bombs would hurt anyone and they laughed and joked about it- kind of like some are doing now over global warming. I don't think they will be laughing much longer, though.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by forestlady
I don't think they will be laughing much longer, though.


So I guess you'd better go buy some coverage for your cats ass then. LMFAO, now while I still have a chance! HAHAHAHa...



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 05:00 AM
link   
I was watching a show and it was talking about the rise in carbin dioxide and how all through out history the amount of CO2 had never been above 260 parts per million or whatever (im sure one of you knows i cant remember now) but just in the last 150 years it had jumped to 340 ppm kind of makes since, since i believe we are causing it and it has been within the time of the industrial revolution if it had been well above the norm before this time i would be on the other bandwagon.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by 19 Kilo
I was watching a show and it was talking about the rise in carbin dioxide and how all through out history the amount of CO2 had never been above 260 parts per million or whatever (im sure one of you knows i cant remember now) but just in the last 150 years it had jumped to 340 ppm kind of makes since, since i believe we are causing it and it has been within the time of the industrial revolution if it had been well above the norm before this time i would be on the other bandwagon.


It has been higher in the deep past. The KT boundary extinction event also showed very high concentrations of CO2, and if we go back to the precambrian, CO2 was much higher than ever before (+4000ppm). Around this time plant-life was colonising land - showing the ability of organisms to change the atmosphere.

However, it hasn't been at this level for hundreds of thousands of years, according to ice-cores around 280-300ppm is norm for an interglacial for the last 800,000 years, we were at 383ppm in January 2007.

[edit on 5-3-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 12:34 AM
link   
Sorry i didnt research that far back but yeah i get the point the only reason it was that high though is because there were'nt many plant on land yet didnt know it was 383 what i seen was from early 2006 i think.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Its not as funny and ridiculous as you think most people won;t have to see te effects of global warming, its the younger generation that will. What they do, everything they do, effects us. It doesnt matter to them they think, hell, its not like im going to be the one suffering from the this the one that has to see our world fall apart piece by piece. Why should i care.

Well screw them i hope they die and burn in hell!!!!!!!



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by forestlady
Right on Regenmacher, good point. Does anyone remember back in the '50's they didn't think nuclear bombs would hurt anyone and they laughed and joked about it- kind of like some are doing now over global warming. I don't think they will be laughing much longer, though.


Does everyone remember that in 1975 the NAS (National Academy of Science) reported they had reasons to believe the Earth was heading to another Little Ice Age in as little as 10 years?

Some might state that the NAS had doubts they could predict the Climate back then...but even now scientists say we do not understand all the factors, and there is a certain level of doubt even among those scientists who say there is a 90% certainty that mankind caused Climate Change...

Throughout history there have been many "90% certainty theories" which "the scientific concensus" thought was right, but at the end were proven to be wrong.

I could be wrong but the original poster could be referring to the "hype' that has been given to Climate Change being the fault of humans.

I doubt anyone who knows that the Earth has gone through periods of Climate Change of warming and cooling would laugh at the idea of "Climate Change".

Climate Change in the past has brought dramatic weather events, and this will continue to happen even when mankind does not exist on the face of this Earth.

Some hide behind the so called "scientific concensus", when history has proven that "scientific concensus" does not mean being right. Sometimes the minority is wrong, sometimes the mayority is wrong.

Being part of a mayority or a minority does not mean being right...

[edit on 6-3-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Does everyone remember that in 1975 the NAS (National Academy of Science) reported they had reasons to believe the Earth was heading to another Little Ice Age in as little as 10 years?


No, but I do have the words that they actually wrote...


there seems little doubt that the present period of unusual warmth will eventually give way to a time of colder climate, but there is no consensus as to the magnitude or rapidity of the transition. The onset of this climatic decline could be several thousand years in the future, although there is a finite probability that a serious worldwide cooling could befall the earth within the next 100 years.


So, they say it could be thousands of years or a finite probability (whatever that means) of within 100 years. In essence, they were correct, we are in an interglacial period and we would have expected to reach the end eventually. A bit longer than 10 though, but still...


Some might state that the NAS had doubts they could predict the Climate back then...but even now scientists say we do not understand all the factors, and there is a certain level of doubt even among those scientists who say there is a 90% certainty that mankind caused Climate Change...


I don't need to state they had big doubts, again, we can simply read their words...


Climatic change has been a subject of intellectual interest for many years. However, there are now more compelling reasons for its study: the growing awareness that our economic and social stability is profoundly influenced by climate and that man's activities themselves may be capable of influencing the climate in possibly undesirable ways. The climates of the earth have always been changing, and they will doubtless continue to do so in the future. How large these future changes will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur, we do not know.

....

These climatic projections, however, could be replaced by quite different future climatic scenarios due to man's inadvertent interference with the otherwise natural variation...

Extracts taken from Understanding Climate Change: A program for action. (1975)

So, we have the comparison of a clear 'we don't know' in 1975, and a 90% certainty in 2007. No comparison. Even in 1975 they indicated the possibility of human activity being an important influencing factor for the earth's climate.

Seems they had that correct, they were also likely correct that we would have entered an cooler ice-age period in 'several thousand years' but with current human activities, who knows what has happened to the natural cycles?

[edit on 6-3-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 07:14 PM
link   
The scripture reading for today from the bible of the religion of Anthropogenic Global Warming is from the 4th Assessment report from the exalted, all knowing, seeker of truth, the IPCC brought to you by the US friendly United Nations.

On page 7 there is a full page chart with a list of 7 key items concerning AGW. There is a probability associated with each of these 7 items. Under the heading of "Likelyhood of a human contribution to observed trend" three of these items are listed as having a probability >66%, four have a probability of >50%. Using the laws of probability the chance that all of these statements are true is 90% certainty. Yes and no. Again reading from your bible,


The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the TAR leading to a very high confidence (better than a 9 out of 10 chance) that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1790 has been one of warming, with a rediative forcing of +1.6(+.6 to +2.4))W/M^2


In keeping with the IPCC's record, one needs to use the lower figure which anyone including the skeptics would agree with. Woopie! Subsequent Assessment reports almost always end up on the previous reports minimums or they don't even report on the subject they are so humiliated.

Let us pray
Please forgive us for even thinking the media is telling us the truth or that we believe we are so omnipitent that we could really cause AGW. Amen

Offering
PLease buy you carbon credits from Al Gore's Carbon credit company.

Benidiction
Forgive me for this blasphamy, relating AGW to a real religion, but according to Webster a religion is a closely held belief. And Al Gore says it is a moral issue.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by forestlady
Right on Regenmacher, good point. Does anyone remember back in the '50's they didn't think nuclear bombs would hurt anyone and they laughed and joked about it- kind of like some are doing now over global warming. I don't think they will be laughing much longer, though.


Actually, they DID think nuclear bombs would hurt people. Remember the evidence of Hiroshima. Tales of nuclear winter and devastated civilizations were common (read Andre Norton's science fiction sometime... her worlds are based on that sort of understanding.)

And we had "duck and cover" drills and so forth for nuclear attacks. Very memorable. And the countdown clock.

Nobody laughed. Trust me on this one.

If only we could get that kind of seriousness about global warming.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by CradleoftheNuclides
Benidiction
Forgive me for this blasphamy, relating AGW to a real religion, but according to Webster a religion is a closely held belief. And Al Gore says it is a moral issue.


That would be funny except that the IPCC report is actually based on science with evidence. Religion requires faith which depends on a lack of evidence. It is those denying the science that require faith, you have no evidence for another mechanism. You live in hope of finding something, anything to explain the current trend in warming, but we can only account for it with significant human activities.

Probably a bit of psychological projection.

Also, your probability calculation seems a bit askew, if these events were totally independent and random samples of the sample space (that one probability is completely unrelated to another), you may well have been correct.

Thus, for example, if we find that human activities have influenced climate change and the number of warm days, this will likely be related to an increase in the number of warm nights, which will be related to warm spell frequency, which will be related to droughts etc etc. These processes are related to one process - human-derived effects on climate.

If I deny you all forms of water for a week, the likelihood of you having a dry mouth, stomach pains, hypotension, a headache, and eventually no heart beat are not the product of the probabilities of each. They will be related to one process - dehydration.

[edit on 7-3-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 09:53 PM
link   
That the IPCC has "evidence" is why I quoted from the report. The evidence shows there is a relatively small probability as scientific proof goes.

Further, I was actually testing to see if anyone would call me on the law of probability thing. Congratulations! You are correct. However, it is not significantly change my point.

Also, Proof? That is funny! Because the sun is given a forcing of only.12 w/m2 that leaves a bunch for CO2. According to a paper by Landscheidt, almost all of the current warming is due to solar variation. The only thing the IPCC has is CO2 has risen during the period of warming. Conversly, there have been periods of cooling mixed in while the CO2 was rising at unprecedented levels. There's a conundrum.

Friends of Science has published a list of 68 peer reviewed papers and articles that refute 7 specific areas of claims by the warmersso there is plenty of evidence. See the FOS web site if you have doubts.

The supposed European Ice Age has been cancelled. There was a significant simple math error in the report and Nature eliminated the ? in the title to make it appear more positive and published it in a hurry to coincide with the Montreal Climate conference. All political.

I have more valid evidence than the IPCC has circumstantial evidence which is all they have. The "evidence of rainfall, cloud cover and diurnal temperature etc. is a yawn.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by CradleoftheNuclides
Also, Proof? That is funny! Because the sun is given a forcing of only.12 w/m2 that leaves a bunch for CO2. According to a paper by Landscheidt, almost all of the current warming is due to solar variation. The only thing the IPCC has is CO2 has risen during the period of warming. Conversly, there have been periods of cooling mixed in while the CO2 was rising at unprecedented levels. There's a conundrum.


Even the most recent study showing significant effects of solar activity only suggests 25-35% attribution (Scafetta & West, 2006) and this has been questioned to be excessive in other articles.


Friends of Science has published a list of 68 peer reviewed papers and articles that refute 7 specific areas of claims by the warmersso there is plenty of evidence. See the FOS web site if you have doubts.


I have doubts about their website. Just a quick perusal is sufficient to see strawmen, disinformation, and the putrid odour of oil-money.


The supposed European Ice Age has been cancelled. There was a significant simple math error in the report and Nature eliminated the ? in the title to make it appear more positive and published it in a hurry to coincide with the Montreal Climate conference. All political.


What report? Some details would be nice...



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 12:31 AM
link   
Global warming is not a joke, I thought it was a couple of years ago, but changes can be seen.
Where I live we never had tornados, we had 3 last year,and a couple more the year before, and when I say we never had them I mean never ever, last 2 years sure were strange, it was an event that made people ask questions, as we never had them .
Also this winter was hot, we didin't have snow, and we had snow for as long as I remember in the winter every time, it was unusualy hot.

I too did not belive that global warming is affecting us, but you have to be there to see it.
Any way, the climate is changing for sure and not for the better.




[edit on 7-3-2007 by pepsi78]



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
..........
So, they say it could be thousands of years or a finite probability (whatever that means) of within 100 years. In essence, they were correct, we are in an interglacial period and we would have expected to reach the end eventually. A bit longer than 10 though, but still...


Right, i should have checked the amount of time they said. Still the thought was that thee would be cooling.



Originally posted by melatonin
I don't need to state they had big doubts, again, we can simply read their words...


And there are doubts now too...and how many times in the past have theories of being "90% or even 100% correct" were proven to be wrong?... Quite a few.



Originally posted by melatonin
.........
Seems they had that correct, they were also likely correct that we would have entered an cooler ice-age period in 'several thousand years' but with current human activities, who knows what has happened to the natural cycles?

[edit on 6-3-2007 by melatonin]


and do i need to remind you again about other reports done in 1978 where scientists predicted Climate Change due to an interstellar cloudlet we would be encountering in the near future?...



Is the solar system entering a nearby interstellar cloud
Authors:
Vidal-Madjar, A.; Laurent, C.; Bruston, P.; Audouze, J.
Affiliation:
AA(CNRS, Laboratoire de Physique Stellaire et Planetaire, Verrieres-le-Buisson, Essonne, France), AB(CNRS, Laboratoire de Physique Stellaire et Planetaire, Verrieres-le-Buisson, Essonne, France), AC(CNRS, Laboratoire de Physique Stellaire et Planetaire, Verrieres-le-Buisson, Essonne, France), AD(Meudon Observatoire, Hauts-de-Seine; Paris XI, Universite, Orsay, Essonne, France)
Publication:
Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, vol. 223, July 15, 1978, p. 589-600. (ApJ Homepage)
Publication Date:
07/1978
Category:
Astrophysics
Origin:
STI
NASA/STI Keywords:
ASTRONOMICAL MODELS, DEUTERIUM, HYDROGEN ATOMS, INTERSTELLAR GAS, SOLAR SYSTEM, ABUNDANCE, EARLY STARS, GAS DENSITY, INTERSTELLAR EXTINCTION
DOI:
10.1086/156294
Bibliographic Code:
1978ApJ...223..589V

Abstract
....................
Observational arguments in favor of such a cloud are presented, and implications of the presence of a nearby cloud are discussed, including possible changes in terrestrial climate. It is suggested that the postulated interstellar cloud should encounter the solar system at some unspecified time in the 'near' future and might have a drastic influence on terrestrial climate in the next 10,000 years.

adsabs.harvard.edu...

Do i also need to remind you that all planets and even moons in our solar system are presently undergoing warming and Climate Change? or that the Sun's activity has increased more in the last 60 years thant for the past 8,000 years?

Many factors are presently happening and which do affect the climate on Earth and other planets in our solar system, yet some just want to dismiss all of these facts and instead want to put their faith on their claim that "it is all mankind's fault"...



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 03:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

That would be funny except that the IPCC report is actually based on science with evidence. Religion requires faith which depends on a lack of evidence.
............


I think it is you among some other people who are making a religion out from the claim that "mankind is at fault for Climate Change".

The IPCC "summary" came out first and several of the scientists who reviewed it are saying it was a summary agreed upon by "policymakers, corporations, and environmental groups"....

For some reason the summary came out first when the report was completly done already. Now they can change the report so it would agree with the "summary" approved and stamped by the policymakers"...



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
..................
I have doubts about their website. Just a quick perusal is sufficient to see strawmen, disinformation, and the putrid odour of oil-money.


Riight... and i guess you and the IPCC policymakers are being paid for by the Communist hidden agenda to blame nations like the United States and to force such nations to stop their emissions while other nations like China can continue and even increase their emissions despite the fact that nations like China are worse polluters than western nations...



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join