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.
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.
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.
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]
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*
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!
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!)
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."
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.
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.
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.
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!!!!
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?
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...
*
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.
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
Originally posted by section8citizen
Our Governments and Major Corporations do more damage to the environment than the citizens do.
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?
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?
..