Is there a correlation between UFO/ET debunkers and Global Warming debunkers?

I too believe in UFO's. I however do not buy into all of this man-made global warming. I agree that our planet is in a warming phase, but I'm not even close to being sold on the idea that it is man's fault.

That doesn't mean that we should continue living like we do. We need to take measures, within reason, to reduce our negative impacts on the environment.

People don't realize that 30 years ago the world was screaming that we were entering an ice age.

Having been trained in the sciences (U. Of Chicago), firmly planting an "opinion" on either side of either of the topics at hand is just plain wrong. There is evidence on both sides of both topics - and while people are jumping to conclusions, I am afraid that people have tossed rigor out the window in favor of quick grants and to not buck the trends.

UFO - some good evidence, but our know physics is a major stumbling block for visitation. Sheer number of stars and planets out there and reality that life is pretty tough, means that life is out there somewhere. Coming here - jury's still out.

Warming - I'm sorry, many data points are not fully understood and while there IS a trend upward in warming and a correlation with CO2 outside of "natural predictions" there are too many assumptions in the models - models that are predicting our fate and politics but have been around for a far shorter time and built with less rigor than our weather models and we all know how accurate those are on a daily basis. Data on Sun output is typically placed as a constant as data is only now coming into show variability and NOBODY knows exactly what effect that may have and the Earth's orbital data is not that much better and again the measurements are recent and NOBODY knows the effect of perturbations of that orbit. Global warming on other planets should have everyone slamming on the brakes but again that data is recent and not really influencing those squawking the loudest. We still don't even have much clue as to the effect of the varying aurora - sure we have some data but there is no reliable data on the exact power fed into the Earth system and what effect that may cause on things. Too many unknowns out there. Should we reduce CO2 - sure no harm there but to claim gloom and doom is crap and nothing more than funding and politics....

Even worse is the arrogance of man - this is NOT only our planet and there are many critters that would love a warm spell. This is also a self regulating system that operates on lengthly time scales and while humans can futz with some things - like CO2, the odds of us being able to trash the planet are close to ZERO - something will live - may not be us but like I said, it is NOT only our ball of dirt...!

I'd propose all the doomsayers with Gore in the lead - say about a million of them, to light a bunch of torches and get in the way of a Cat 4/5 hurricane and then come back and tell me we have any power on this planet. Heck, I'll even let them detonate some nukes in it's path.... Earth will be just fine no matter what we do to it. Will it be good for us - maybe, and maybe not but it's been thru more and bigger things than what we will ever do to it....

I believe 100% that life outside our planet exists, I don't think it's possible to deny really... I also believe there is a very good chance they have been/are visiting this planet.

Do I believe in global warming? Definately! ...But do I believe it's manmade? Not for a second (though I won't discount the possibility that we may be slightly speeding it up). I guess my reasons are more or less the same as others have stated here... won't bother repeating. I will however repeat though, if you have only so far heard the 'mainstream' side of the argument... definately watch "The Great Global Warming Swindle".

Although let me make it clear -- none of my beliefs change the fact that I strongly feel we need to find a new means of energy - free & clean energy. I'm sure if it wasn't for the sheer size of the amount of money put into oil, we would have unlimited clean, free energy... a LONG time ago.

I believe 'the powers that be' are using this natural warming phenomenon caused by the sun, as an opportunity to gain more control over us. It's a great excuse, isn't it? I can already hear it... "In order to save our existance on this planet, we must take the neccessary measures needed" etc. I'm sure they've already got a HUGE list of objectives they can put in place.

It's looking at the picture from this sort of view point where I hope you understand now why some of us are pushing this debate quite hard. It has nothing to do with us trying to stop oil from going out of business, or whatever. I'm sure theres a few out there working for the big oil companies, but I think the majority are all for free energy. It's our freedom we're worried for.

from experience, i have fundamental problems embracing faith-based concepts, including religion...

wrt AGW - manmade global warming - i could easily pass for a debunker, while i firmly believe that many UFO sightings can't be debunked easily if at all, the so-called Battle of LA being a prime example.


the tenacity with which AGW proponents defend their belief speaks volumes, just like their urge to 'do something', no matter how damaging that 'something' turned out to be, even before implementation on a larger scale:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

imho, AGW is more than just an exercise in zealotry, it's a diversion from more pressing issues. f-ex. deforestation was hotly debated topic during the 90s, today, it's considered 'green' to grow sugar cane, on an industrial scale, instead. anything can be made a creed by a sufficient amount of advertising, it seems.

Put me in the the boat of those who believe in UFOs but think the whole Man-made Global warming is a load of rubbish. I love how when it was discovered that it was getting colder in some areas they changed the name from Global Warming to Climate Change, talk about having your cake and eating it to.

It also now appears that Mars is also suffering from climate change so either those Rovers expel A LOT of CO2 then the sun is the main reason to blame any changing of weather patterns like it has been since the dawn of time.

I believe we should recycle when ever possible but not have to feel guilty for driving to work.

i saw this thread and the first thought that popped into my head was
" do what " im just not sure how you came to this conclusion .
not making fun of you or anything but what how did you make this
connection ? thanks for answering , if you do .

I just watched that movie "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and it's so transparently obvious that it's nothing but 'big corporation' propaganda against the issue of Global Warming.

I've done some casual research on some those so-called esteemed experts used in this movie (as for the 'facts' presented in this movie, that's another whole story which I'm saving for another post here because it was so full of errors, it would take pages and pages to even outline them) and here's a short run down on a few of them -- should add that there were only a small group of people talking in this movie anyway so this in itself brought up red flags.

Here's where I got this information from: www.badscience.net...

Here are some quotes from that page about a few of the talking heads in this movie -- but once again, there were only a few people talking in this movie anyway.

the two main (pseudo)scientists on the programme will be Professor Paul Reiter whose Annapolis Centre for Science-Based Public Policy has received $763,500 in funding from ExxonMobil to play down the human contribution to global warming, and Professor Ian Clark whose Fraser Institute has received $120,000 from ExxonMobil.

Nigel Calder is introduced as the ex-editor of New Scientist (he’s 75, and edited new scientist briefly between the ages of 31 and 35, shortly after its launch).

Hmmm, he was seen talking in this movie more than anybody else but what's he been doing for the last 40 years?

Piers Corbyn
The program said his predictions on the weather are consistently more accurate than the Met office. As far as I know, from reading around him a year or so ago, this is entirely incorrect, but I would welcome evidence to the contrary.

It’s made by Martin Durkin. In 1997 he made a series called Against Nature for Channel 4. It targeted environmentalists, and presented them as ‘the new enemy of science’ and comparable to the Nazis. They were responsible for the deprivation and death of millions in the Third World.

The following quote is from en.wikipedia.org...

Carl Wunsch, one of the scientists featured in the programme, has said that he was "completely misrepresented" in the film and had been "totally misled" when he agreed to be interviewed.

We are to find out that Durkin did the same kind of thing in his 1997 show entitled 'Against Nature' -- a doc that also targeted Global Warming.

As someone with a biology degree and background and an occasional bird watcher, I'm a firm believer in global warming being increased by human activity. I also believe there's other life and other civilizations out there, but I don't believe they visit us.

I'm Pagan (nominally) in my beliefs.

Originally posted by gen.disaray
i saw this thread and the first thought that popped into my head was
" do what " im just not sure how you came to this conclusion .

not making fun of you or anything but what how did you make this
connection ? thanks for answering , if you do .

I've stated in my first post that from what I've seen, those people whom I know who scoff that there are UFO's also scoff at Global Warming. For this reason I was seeing a positive correlation between these 2 disparate topics at least among those people I know personally.

I then posted this thread to find out what members of this forum had to say about that. So far, those respondents to this thread are saying that they do believe that we are being visited by UFO's (with the exception of 2) but they do not believe in Global Warming. Great that they directed me to that video because it has illuminated me on why some of these people think the way they do on this issue -- but too bad it's based on "Big Corporation' propaganda. I was hoping to find more valid evidence in support of their claims but this video is definitely not the place to find it.



[edit on 7-4-2007 by Palasheea]

Originally posted by Byrd
As someone with a biology degree and background and an occasional bird watcher, I'm a firm believer in global warming being increased by human activity. I also believe there's other life and other civilizations out there, but I don't believe they visit us.

I'm Pagan (nominally) in my beliefs.

Thanks for contributing Bryd! So in your case it's:
Being visited by ET's -- neg.
Global Warming -- positive

A skeptic is not a dirty word. Being a skeptic doesn't mean you want to debunk everything -- even the truth. A Skeptic is a person who looks at all of the information in front of him regarding a certain phenomenon and tries to rule out all other possibilities before pronouncing his judgement regarding that phenomenon....

...So yes. There probably is a correlation between UFO Skeptics, Global Warming-being-caused-by-man Skeptics, and all Skeptics in general. A global warming skeptic can see that there are many other forces behind the warming up of our planet -- and not all of them are caused by humans (precession, sun activity, etc.). For instance, why is Mars seemingly warming up?

While I too believe there is extraterrestial intelligence, I have seen no UFO information that couldn't be explained as terrestial in origin. And I do believe our planet is warming up, but there is much proof out there that humans alone are not responsible for this. Again...I'm not doubting global warming, but I am doubting the role of humans in it.

And to the people who claim they have noticed it getting warmer where they live (thus proving global warming) -- this also proves nothing. The Earth has heated up only 1 to 3 degrees over the last 100 years. I'm not disputing that this can have dire effects on our oceans and ice caps, but I do question any one person's ability to "feel" the earth warming up 2 degrees over 100 years time. Right now its the coldest April in many years here in the Northeast. This, too, is just an anomaly and is thus meaningless.

Lol, I don't know what part of the N.E. you live in but just last week or so ago it shot up to 80 degrees here!

[edit on 7-4-2007 by Palasheea]

Originally posted by Palasheea
Great that they directed me to that video because it has illuminated me on why some of these people think the way they do on this issue -- but too bad it's based on "Big Corporation' propaganda. I was hoping to find more valid evidence in support of their claims but this video is definitely not the place to find it.

there is propaganda in use by both sides, granted the 'Great Global Warming Swindle' is sorely lacking in many areas, especially the second half, which is full of biased assumptions - as if centralized power generation had any use in Africa with its huge distances and nonexisting infrastructure..), but you'll see (if you visit the Fragile Earth forum) that the issue had been heavily disputed long before this particular movie made it to ATS.

despite the sceptic slant of this thread, the majority seems to believe global warming is our fault, and, most importantly, dangerous. proponents will never tell you that trees have been found below glaciers or that Greenland once sustained a small Viking colony's agriculture, today it's still an icy desert.


considering chaos theory and the 'butterfly effect', everything has an influence on the entire biosphere, so claiming a contribution to the greenhouse effect is correct but not very informative, is it?! blindly believing in computer models of the next hundred years (!!) is akin to superstition, these people need to sit back and take a look at predictions from 1907, imho.



PS: the reason you see 'sceptics' (including me) posting here almost exclusively is that we are probably sensitized to global warming threads, d'uh.

[edit on 7.4.2007 by Long Lance]

Thanks Long Lance for your comments. So why are only the skeptics of Global Warming posting here in this thread when it appears that the majority DO believe that it's main culprit is man-made?

Yet, I do admit that some of the material in that video is compelling to say the least but even though I'm willing to hear out the other side of this issue, somehow the strident, aggressive undertone of this video made me suspicious of its message right from the start.

'All I know at this particular time is that, just like you said, there's strong propaganda on both sides of the issue so what's the avg. lay person to do?

I guess it comes down to each of us doing our own research on this but on the other hand, so much of the information is so technical, one would have to at least have a degree in the earth sciences to truly comprehend and decipher all of the information on this topic and to appreciate each point of view.

Nevertheless, one thing is clear, our world is going through a warm spell right now that may last only for another few years or it may last (and get hotter) in the upcoming centuries ahead of us.

It seems to me that instead of debating if Global Warming is man-made or not, it would make more sense to begin a very serious dialogue on what kinds of changes need to be made on a global level so that those who live in those developing countries will be able to somehow survive this global warming in the years ahead.

And what about pollution? If things continue the way it is right now, what effects does heat have on those pollutants of our air and water? Wouldn't it be worse than if, for example, we were going through a cold spell instead?

And what about disease, droughts, crop failure, water shortage and the detrimental effects excessive heat have on our elders? One only needs to recall how many senior citizens died in France 3 years ago during a long heat wave that hit that country that summer.

It seems to me that this Global Warming debate should shift over to a dialogue on human management instead including implementation of vast programs that include air-conditioning for those environments where our most vulnerable citizens of the world live e.g. Africa, nursing homes, schools, work places and the list goes on and on. Implentation of vast irrigation systems in those area's that will turn into dust bowls as result of this Global Warming.

Right now we need to initiate those social programs and technology to manage this problem so as to save lives -- now and in the years ahead.



[edit on 7-4-2007 by Palasheea]

Originally posted by Palasheea
Thanks Long Lance for your comments. So why are only the skeptics of Global Warming posting here in this thread when it appears that the majority DO believe that it's main culprit is man-made?
...

well, i can only speak for myself so my motivation is the unambiguous feeling that if i want to make even the slightest difference (change a dozen people's attitudes and make them think a few minutes about what they hear elsewhere - i heard it's addictive and one or two might develop a habit out of it) i'll have to do some legwork so to speak and being at a numerical disadvantage has to be compensated by elevated post count.

what you said about facts and how difficult it was to make sense of them, just playing the devil's advocate, why do you think people with appropriate degrees will immediately understand everything about AGW ? they sure would not tell, if they didn't would they? these complex models would take ages to sift through, they are essentially software, aren't they? do you know how hard squashing bugs is and how much time and effort is required to do it? project costs are predominatly accumulated during testing, which means bug fixes. being a programmer certainly helps, but there's no chance you could do it alone on one program, is there?


so, we'll have to stick to simpler methods, because otherwise, we'd all have to shut up al day long, because we'd have to achieve the level of understanding of anyone we are talking to first...

that can't be, we are affected by the decisions, we'd better make damn sure that we get to influence or, if necessary, change decisions (by exposure and rallying, for example) to better suit our needs. if we don't, we will surely be lead into further dependency and debilitating ignorance perpetuated by those we allow to make decisions for us.


there is no need to know all the science to refute it, facts will do. f.ex. if they say, 'hottest february on record' when it was in fact like 10C (hot?) and when records extend all of 160 years into the past, well, if you know about Greenland and you know about ancient remnants of flora below glaciers, you won't be impresssed, will you? if you know the old prediction that by now, the world should be covered knee-deep in horse manure, you will not take other predictions as the gospel either... same for the 'new' dogma, peopel in the past were ignorant... well did they share that opinion by any chance?

hindsight is 20/20, people know this, which is why ANY prediction which can't be verified within a reasonable timeframe is absolutely worthless. give me a break, i know that biz planning for 3 years max is kind of careless, but 100 years? who of us alive today will see the prediction fail or come true?


regarding heat wave deaths, 60m people live in France, a few of them died during a heatwave - how many die without a heatwave every day?.

Good news is Bad news, where i live, we often had 6 feet of snow last year, roofs collapsed under the load, and we are normally used to boatloads of snow. as expected, GW was rarely mentioned at that time, this year, we barely reached freezing point save two or three days, can you imagine the inuendo of

OMG we are all gonna die lest we repent and drive bicycles instead of cars!!

throughout the media? selective perception at its finest.

Skadi, how does my being a Socialist have to do with my
beliefs regarding alien life or non-natural Global Climate Change?


Oh, and I forgot to mention in my first post, I am, for all intensive
purposes an Atheist.

It's always best to take the middle road so maybe that's the best approach as far as evaluating the information we've gotten so far on Global Warming and by this I don't mean just the AGW type.

Regardless if this current warming trend is man-made or something cyclical, it's still going to happen regardless if one side of this issue wins out over the other.

We are still going to have to find solutions for all of those contingent after-effects experienced when our planets' temperature rises. So it makes sense to me that this current debate on the cause of GW is just a diversion until we get our act together and start addressing those real issues having to do with planetary survival.