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.

 

Anyone else finding this so-called Earth Day a joke ?

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chupa101
Zeeon, please read all the posts in this thread by people who are presenting the evidence that shows man-made CO2 driven global warming as alarmist and ill-proven. Even under their theory global warming cannot be reversed, so even if we do the whole 'carbon neutral' thing it wouldn't stop. Volcanoes produce more CO2 then humans do in an entire year, its all pointless.

They are telling people that a poorly based theory is fact; that they can stop global warming and 'save the planet'. And that is plain wrong.


Are you really going to get into an "evidence" match with me? I'm sure that I can find a plethora of evidence that backs GW then evidence that "disproves" it.

As for the NASA article quoted earlier - I love how it was taken down, pulled from the webarchive to post here, and then quoted as evidence. And what exactly is NASA's involvement with studies on Antartic ice? Last time I checked NASA was the National Aeronautics and Space Administration - what exactly has that got to do with Antarctic Ice?



They are telling people that a poorly based theory is fact; that they can stop global warming and 'save the planet'. And that is plain wrong.


No they are saying that we can slow it down - not stop it. I posted earlier that GW is a natural occurence. By being more "Green" we can slow down the process and it'll by us more time to prepare. This is the POINT of the "Global Warming Movement."

I'm going to sum it up right here.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes, "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations,"[1] which leads to warming of the surface and lower atmosphere by increasing the greenhouse effect. Natural phenomena such as solar variation combined with volcanoes have probably had a small warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950, but a small cooling effect since 1950.[2][3] These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists is the only scientific society that rejects these conclusions.[4][5] A few individual scientists disagree with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC.[6]

Source

Notice how in italics the only major association that rejects global warming is the American Association of Petroleum Geologisits? WOW THATS SHOCKING!


Yet despite all of this the majority of you continually push this "counter documentary" "The Global Warming Swindle" (or something along those lines) as your #1 basis for disprooving Global Warming. WOW ! Yeah I'm jump right on that one! *rolls eyes* Please tell me you have more overwhelming evidence than a pulled article on antarctic ice from NASA and some other cheese sources.

EDIT to Add -

And by the way - Most national governments have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol aimed at combating greenhouse gas emissions. Every government that has signed the Kyoto Protocol must be in on it too right!

FJ33R THE NWO MAN THEY'RE ALL GOING TO GET US!!!!



[edit on 8-7-2007 by zeeon]




posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Well I certainly can not speak for everyone else, for myself however I have nothing against living cleaner, greener, and taking better care of the planet. I agree that is a great idea and it is something that should be done right away. I thought Global Warming was real and I was under the impression that the evidence supported that as fact. To think otherwise, well for lack of a better term, you would be a crack pot or crazy. Then this thread happened and I started doing some research. What can I say now but...Wow. It is amazing how easily the wool can be pulled over your eyes when you stop paying attention for just a second.

My question is this.... what does more damage to the planet? CO2 emissions or a nuclear weapons test and the releasing of chemicals into the atmosphere?

What does more damage? Not putting a plastic bottle in a recycling bin or the destruction of the rain forest?

What is more likely to have a bigger impact right now today?

I don't think people in general are against living cleaner, greener and taking better care of our planet. I think they just do not like being lied to and they see the same thing I see. Our Governments and Major Corporations do more damage to the environment than the citizens do.



On a side note: This has been a really great thread with good arguments from both sides. It is nice to see people respect each other even with such different opinions.



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by zeeon
you continually push this "counter documentary" "The Global Warming Swindle" (or something along those lines) as your #1 basis for disprooving Global Warming. WOW ! Yeah I'm jump right on that one! *rolls eyes*


Sigh...Just watch it. And I don't continually push it, I've only posted it once...

If you bothered to read ANY of my posts you would see that I am not saying Global warming is not happening. I am saying that CO2 is not the cause.

As I stated in my first post:


Originally posted by Chupa101
I agree that levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases do correlate with rising GMST (Global mean surface temperature), but that does not mean they have caused the temperature increase. As I've said to many people who shout the 'facts' of global warming: Correlation does not imply causation!


Here is an article that goes into alot more detail about the correlations between CO2 and temperature:

CO2 and Temperature (If you are going to read any of it then please take note of the 'Very short conclusion' section at the end, it gets straight to the point.)

And (as the article states) here is a link to a chart presented by one of your beloved organisations, that when read correctly, supports the hypothesis of CO2 increase after temperature increase: UNEP

Another quote from one of my previous posts:


Originally posted by Chupa101
Studies of ice age temperature variations have shown CO2 levels increase after warming rather than before. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is pretty damn small, just 0.04% of the Earth's total atmosphere. The present levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are estimated to be 375 p.p.m. (parts per million) – yet the Earth has been frozen with much higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere; during the Ordovician period the Earth was in an ice age with atmospheric CO2 estimated at 4,400 p.p.m!

I think that there is a far greater chance that our Sun, which is the size of 1,206,885 Earth's is causing any climate change, rather than 0.04% of our atmosphere. (Note: Also by the current logic on Global Warming water vapour is the biggest cause, as it is the most prolific greenhouse gas!)


As I said, under their own logic the single biggest cause of global warming is water vapour, a substance even further (than CO2) outside of our control. Doesn't this ring alarm bells about there theory behind global warming? How can we slow down any temperature increase unless we take the biggest greenhouse gas into consideration?

Here are two articles I've quickly found on Solar warming for you to consider (I'm sure with a few days I could get some copies of something more in depth):

www.worldclimatereport.com - Solar Warming

Telegraph - Truth about global warming.


Originally posted by zeeon
By being more "Green" we can slow down the process and it'll by us more time to prepare. This is the POINT of the "Global Warming Movement."


If by 'Being Green' you mean reducing CO2, then I have to say this will not slow the process down. - Because CO2 is not causing the climate change. Simply put. Look at my previous posts for my beliefs on Greener technologies.

And I've run out of words so will continue answers on the next Post, will just add:


Originally posted by Chupa101
In effect the real cause of Global Warming is ignored by Environmental Scientists because if people knew the truth they would feel utterly helpless; and mainly because environmentalism is an industry worth Billions. - If this theory was publicly accepted then a lot of people would be out of a job.



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 06:15 PM
link   
If you don't believe in global warming, try turning on an electric car in the garage with the door shut. Then try the same experiment with the gas guzzling SUV sitting on the driveway, and of course time to see how long you last.

Please report back here with your findings.



Obviously the scale of one garage does not compare to planet earth. However, the same could be said in comparison to earth's automobile population and your single SUV sitting in the garage.

[edit on 8-7-2007 by syntaxer]



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 06:16 PM
link   
yea this reeks. What reeks more is that if people were truly concerned about earth and the environment, they wouldn't flock to events like live earth. this being preached to about "GLOBAL WARMING". It's all hogwash. Yes, I believe that there is a such thing, but it's a natural occurence especially now with the sun shooting off so much more. They're just running with it, using tools and whatnot to heighten the effects.

And they surely wouldn't be there to observe and party with the worst waters of the world, government and entertainment industries.

And all of this seems to be fine.
...

[edit on 7/8/2007 by acegotflows]



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Well, they sure are proud of the new design:











Wink.

Don't forget to go out and buy those iPhones and Chryslers! Or whatever it is they tell us that we want. Nothing is free... ESPECIALLY concerts your kids might go to.

[edit on 8-7-2007 by spectre76]



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Continued:


Originally posted by zeeon
Are you really going to get into an "evidence" match with me? I'm sure that I can find a plethora of evidence that backs GW then evidence that "disproves" it.


Well, an 'evidence match'? Sorry I'm not going to do that.


But you did use 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming'. Not to pick but Wiki is one of the worst sources you can use, it holds no academic weight as anyone can post onto it and change the information (there are web communities who deliberately post incorrect info onto Wiki all the time). Not to say that I don't love Wiki and it has helped me on many an essay.



Originally posted by zeeon
As for the NASA article quoted earlier - I love how it was taken down, pulled from the webarchive to post here, and then quoted as evidence. And what exactly is NASA's involvement with studies on Antartic ice? Last time I checked NASA was the National Aeronautics and Space Administration - what exactly has that got to do with Antarctic Ice?



Please tell me you have more overwhelming evidence than a pulled article on antarctic ice from NASA and some other cheese sources.


What's up with all this NASA/Arctic stuff? I'll assume that you were referring to someone else's post.


Originally posted by zeeon
And by the way - Most national governments have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol aimed at combating greenhouse gas emissions. Every government that has signed the Kyoto Protocol must be in on it too right!

FJ33R THE NWO MAN THEY'RE ALL GOING TO GET US!!!!


In on what? I believe in the 'NWO' in the strictest sense, as globalisation, the Type 1 civilisation. Google: 'Kardashev scale'. That isn't a bad thing. That's not to say there aren't organisations who want an NWO based only on their particular ideas and beliefs; ignoring democratic, secular state and freedom of speech.

Kyoto. A lot of countries have signed up in good faith. CO2 man-made global warming isn't as much a conspiracy as it is bad science. I can't really think of any more to say about that.



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Chupa -

In response (quickly, I have to leave) my entire post wasn't directed at you, only segments of it.

I really don't see what You and I are arguing about - I think we're pretty much on the same side. I'm not saying man made CO2 emissions are the direct cause of GW either (although I do believe it is a mitigating factor.)
I'm directing my posts more towards those people who believe GW is a big corporate conspiracy and that the fact that the world is warming up is a big lie.

Just wanted to clarify.

[edit on 8-7-2007 by zeeon]



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 11:43 PM
link   
i think i can speak for most ANTI Live Earth people on here when i say this:

WE ARE NOT against living greener and looking after our planet - i dont know of anybody who would not want to look after this place we call Earth.

what WE ARE AGAINST is the manipulation, hypocrisy, bad science and swindling of our youth that Live Earth represents.

SOmeone said it best on here already - look at who was behind the black rights and women's lib movements....

NO-ONE would begrudge either of those movements, both of them needed to happen. but if you look at WHEN they were started and WHO really started them it becomes clear that they were initiated as a distraction.

the "man has caused global warming and can save the planet" line is EXACTLY the same. the masses will focus all their attention on trying to reverse the damage they have apparently caused while ignoring other attrocities occuring on a daily basis around the world, such as:

War and death in the Congo
The REAL death toll in the Middle East
The destruction of the Amazon
and so on....

so YES, lets live greener! but not becuase some washed up mind-controlled celebrity or Al Gore told us to, but because we love and respect our Earth.

And lets not be distracted in the mean time - learn about things THEY dont want you to (such as Solar Warming and the Sun's affect on Earth's weather) and halt the mass brain-washing and distraction techniques of the NWO




[edit on 8-7-2007 by srsen]

[edit on 8-7-2007 by srsen]



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 12:12 AM
link   
As the original poster, my point wasnt to debate whether or not global warming was a reality or not.

I was pointing out the sponsors behind this movement are highly suspect. In addition people like the youngest Rothschild kid have spoken out against global warming.

So whats their motivation ? Well for one I see the same people asking for a global tax to fight pollution.

Also, one must look to the past to see how seemingly noble movements were in fact being controlled by less than noble people.

In the 1960's we had the Women's movement in the United States led by Gloria Steinem. Ignorantly, Gloria boasted how she received millions of dollars to fund her movement and help start a magazine. The money came from a CIA operative.

So why would the CIA fund such an effort ? Simple really...the best way to fight something is to at least partially control it and help steer it in the direction you desire.

This has happened a lot in history. Some of the biggest names in noble movements were in fact nemesis to that very effort.

Fast forward to present-day and see the sponsors of this movement. Corporations who pollute the planet and create a society based upon consumption, not conservation.

This event seems obvious to me. The sponsors wish to manipulate it to suit their interests. And possibly further their world govt agenda by creating a world tax.

Listen to the recent Alex Jones interview of the young Rothschilds brat or read his book. When in history has any Rothschild done anything remotely good for the poor and suffering of this planet ?

This movement/event may have noble intentions but the folks behind it are not



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 12:24 AM
link   
As evidenced by this treads responses, my answer to the OP is that "no, the Liver Earth day was not a joke". Even people that hate Al Gore or some of the performers see a reason to reduce their own impact on the planet. It may be to reduce consumption of fossil fuels or other pollutants beyond CO2. In all fairness it makes a difference what we all do. Kudos to those of you see a light even if it is different one than us tree hugging, green loving, planet saving eco freaks if you want to call it that.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
Just wondering...

Whats so scary or reprehensible about living a bit cleaner, a bit greener and looking after the planet a bit better?

Why are people almost hysterically against the ideas?


Im all for a healthy planet. I however dont support the people behind this farce of an event.

Its the same old classic heglianistic create the problem and then offer the solution garbage the NWO has been doing to us for years. And you know what ? The NWO folks are quite literally laughing at us for how dumb we remain.

These folks pollute our planet and then offer us the solution...a world tax and other things like alternative fuels such as bio diesel. These solutions of course allow for the NWO to remain in control.

And us foolish humans will gladly run out and buy Bio cars to run this new fuel. And we'll get that fuel from stations and pay the NWO for it. And another round of consumption will begin.

The only thing not being offered is a real solution to the problem because that would free us from the devil. Free energy would end need our dependence on the NWO. It would free us from consumption and energy taxes because how can anyone charge us a tax on something free ? !

Learn about Free energy and then you'll see the truth behind ridiculous movements such as this. Its nothing more than another way to keep us under their filthy boots. Wake up folks



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chupa101

Originally posted by zeeon
you continually push this "counter documentary" "The Global Warming Swindle" (or something along those lines) as your #1 basis for disprooving Global Warming. WOW ! Yeah I'm jump right on that one! *rolls eyes*


Sigh...Just watch it. And I don't continually push it, I've only posted it once...
*

Amazing how people fall for this "The Global Warming Swindle" documentary. Do some research... read some reports in peer reviewed scientific journals.... reports backed up with actual scientific research...

Some info about this documentary from Wikipedia:



In response to the programme's broadcast, John T. Houghton (co-chair IPCC Scientific Assessment working group 1988-2002) assessed some of its main assertions and conclusions. According to Houghton the program was "a mixture of truth, half truth and falsehood put together with the sole purpose of discrediting the science of global warming", which he noted had been endorsed by the scientific community including the Academies of Science of the major industrialized countries plus China, India and Brazil) along with the IPCC.




The British Antarctic Survey released a "Statement" about the The Great Global Warming Swindle. It is highly critical of the programme, singling out the use of a graph with the incorrect time axis, and also the statements made about solar activity: "A comparison of the distorted and undistorted contemporary data reveal that the plot of solar activity bears no resemblance to the temperature curve, especially in the last 20 years." Comparing scientific methods with Channel 4's editorial standards, the statement says: "Any scientist found to have falsified data in the manner of the Channel 4 programme would be guilty of serious professional misconduct."




On the issue of volcanic CO2 emissions, it says:

A second issue was the claim that human emissions of CO2 are small compared to natural emissions from volcanoes. This is untrue: current annual emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement production are estimated to be around 100 times greater than average annual volcanic emissions of CO2. That large volcanoes cannot significantly perturb the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere is apparent from the ice core and atmospheric record of CO2 concentrations, which shows a steady rise during the industrial period, with no unusual changes after large eruptions.





Eigil Friis-Christensen's research was used to support claims about the influence of solar activity on climate, both in the programme and Durkin's subsequent defence of it. Friis-Christensen and colleague Nathan Rive have criticised the way the solar data were used: We have concerns regarding the use of a graph featured in the documentary titled ‘Temp & Solar Activity 400 Years’. Firstly, we have reason to believe that parts of the graph were made up of fabricated data that were presented as genuine. The inclusion of the artificial data is both misleading and pointless.


etc, etc, etc.

Source



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 02:32 AM
link   
Only ignorants argue about certainity of global warming..

Even if there is no GW, does that mean we can continue with pollution?

And btw, FEMINIZATION CAUSED BY POLLUTION could be even more disturbing than GW.

Personally, every day to me is an earth day except for the 'actual earth day'



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by admriker444
Learn about Free energy and then you'll see the truth behind ridiculous movements such as this. Its nothing more than another way to keep us under their filthy boots. Wake up folks


So, me going to a junkyard, picking up an alternator off a wreck, making some blades for it and recharging batteries on a trickle charge from the wind is playing into the NWO's hands?

How, exactly, does that work?



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 03:52 AM
link   
re-read admriker444's last two posts...

THey say it all and THAT is what this thread is about.

There IS free energy which is, surprise surprise
ABOVE and BEYOND bio-fuels.

As much as bio-fuel IS better than what we currently use ITS STILL NOT THE ANSWER!

NWO will sell it to the world as the answer (as well as other similar fuels) while the whole time managing to avoid, in any serious way, the issue of free energy.

WAKE UP PEOPLE! we are being sold a lie and taking it hook, line and sinker.



Finally, and once again, NO-ONE IS SAYING DON'T LIVE GREENER!! WE ALL WANT TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE THE PLANET
- as far as we know
its the only one we've got



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by section8citizen
Our Governments and Major Corporations do more damage to the environment than the citizens do.


So what you say is that the Major Corporations and the goverments destroy the earth because they feel like doing that? That there are industries that manufactures pollution, and that is all they do (ok, maybe in Russia)?
You don't think that a major part of all the products that during process of manufacturing causes vast destruction and pollution are ment to be used by us, the people, living in the cities? Fuel for our cars, chemicals for our gardens, drugs for our headaches, modified and chemically treated meats, candies and vegetables for our tables, coal and oil based powerplants to give us light, heat and water, weaponry like DU-shells and nuclear weapons made to ensure our safety...
This list can go on forever.
Everyone are just akin to wash themselves free from blame, accusing "corporations" and others, but refuse to let go of their right to consume millions of products each year that during processing and as waste contributes to sereious dangers for our enviroment. People in general have grave problems with seeing the entire chain of events, they take all for granted and believe that car batteries and house paint grows on trees and that trees are eternal and pops out of the soil no matter what. People are even so desperate and afraid of what is going on that they either just block it out or (even worse) thinks, for real, that some "redeemer" will come from the sky and deliver us all from evil and make everything alright again. That is sickening.
Catch my drift? You'd better.

I also think that the "Live Earth" event was kind of shallow, even though the message is vital, the entire establishment is lame. And having Coca-Cola logotypes don't really make anything more trustworthy. Maybe it was targeted more for the younger generations, trying to implement these viewspoints in an early stage instead of the viewpoints we got when we were kids, viewpoints like "buy it, use it, throw it away!".

And for all of you who deny global warming; how do you explain the ice-caps melting? Last thing I heard was that heat melts ice but I might be wrong.

You folks who live to attack Al Gore, do you ever have anything concrete to say in your critisism more than "con nut" and "smiling weasel"?

Always remember that it is us, the population that causes the number one threat to the enviroment, the earth and to life. It's not corporations run by evil mastermind computers and cyborgs (or Lizard- and/or Fish-men for that sake), it's corporations run by people, making products that in the end are ment to serve us, that we crave and wouldn'd live without, the consuming billions of us.

Am I right or am I right!

[edit=typos]

[edit on 9-7-2007 by Raud]



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 04:38 AM
link   
Did anyone catch the brilliant documentary "The great global warming swindle"? its on Youtube if not, well worth a watch.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore


No. I don't care to elaborate on that, because that wasn't what I asked.

I asked whats so scary about living a bit cleaner, a bit greener and looking after the planet a bit better. I'm not looking at the deep semantics of the issue, I want to find out why there appears to be so much hostility to what is, essentially, a bloody good idea for everyone.

Is it just that Gore is involved? Its a political thing?





nothing is scary about it, it'S just unrelated. what you call 'deep semantics' is already costing us dearly, you can't just focus on good intentions (which are certainly involved but abused) while ignoring the real, tangible outcomes, can you?

a political thing? yes, i think it's insulting to be lied to, manipulated and talked to as if we had a big viod between our ears, so one could say that i for one am fed up by all things politricks and can't possibly understand why someone who'd be instinctively sceptical of gov't proposals would cheer some defunct politician just because he's wrapping himself into a mantle of ecology and goodwill..


while pursuing yet another money transfer scheme, which will do nothing for the planet, or worse, inflict damage.

[edit on 9.7.2007 by Long Lance]



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by zeeon

Are you really going to get into an "evidence" match with me? I'm sure that I can find a plethora of evidence that backs GW then evidence that "disproves" it.

As for the NASA article quoted earlier - I love how it was taken down, pulled from the webarchive to post here, and then quoted as evidence. And what exactly is NASA's involvement with studies on Antartic ice? Last time I checked NASA was the National Aeronautics and Space Administration - what exactly has that got to do with Antarctic Ice?
..


so, you're disputing NASA's artticles? that's gross, because, frankly, what does qualify as a credible source, then? anything that floats your boat and helps your agenda? i'm not sure you want to go down that route - are you?

'pulled from the web archive' ... so mad that censorship has its limits?


oh yeah, just i case you really missed it: NASA is operating satellites, which in turn give them enormous amounts of data on the planet's surface developments... good enough? the data set is quite drastic, one day per year, three weeks in 20 years, do you think you'll need a peer review of the data? ice no ice, what gives, let's call it a consensus and publish


PS: i have no idea how much of Antarctica is currently melting and how much isn't, i just presented conflicting evidence, which many people would consider legit, your reaction to it is tale-telling, imho. oh and one last thing: i could not care less how many alarming papers you can dig up, as long as the points presented are not refute, they stand, casting a very bad light on the honesty of established climatology, because:

you can't just 'miss' an increase in the length of ice seasons by three weeks, can you?



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join