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: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by 7Ayreon
It is no joke. Already 105 dead as of today in Iraq and Globalization news points to a lot of political debate to wage war with Iran because, of this. There is a lot happening today, if you can't see it, than, you can't see it.

news.bbc.co.uk...

/7A out...


If Al Gore is such a big backer of the global warming myth;

WHY WAS AL GORE AFRAID TO TAKE THIS MAN'S WAGER?
AL GORE - A LIAR.

I can forsee problems arising with whiners about the site; here's ACCUWEATHER reporting on the issue - AL GORE - STILL A LIAR.




posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 06:45 AM
link   
You know what saddens me?

The United States is turning something that affects the whole planet into a party-political issue.

You're shooting the messenger.

Read the message.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
You know what saddens me?

The United States is turning something that affects the whole planet into a party-political issue.

You're shooting the messenger.

Read the message.



Please see my thread; Global warming is a farce.
What happens to the messenger when the message he brings is a lie?



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by forsakenwayfarer
What happens to the messenger when the message he brings is a lie?


Well these people would disagree.

Scientific Opinion on Climate Change



National and international science academies and professional societies have assessed the current scientific opinion on climate change, in particular recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the IPCC position that "An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities"


So one guy chucks a $10k bet at Al Gore and all of a sudden the research put in by these people is wrong?

Come off it. You are letting party politics get in the way of a global phenomena.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 07:11 AM
link   
Point being - I don't buy it. We have a 10% view of a BILLION YEAR OLD SYSTEM IN ACTION.


The planet was covered to a rough extent of about 50% with ICE ten thousand years ago.

Were we having this debate back then, it would STILL be a bad thing, and STILL be "our fault."



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by forsakenwayfarer
If Al Gore is such a big backer of the global warming myth;

WHY WAS AL GORE AFRAID TO TAKE THIS MAN'S WAGER?
AL GORE - A LIAR.

I can forsee problems arising with whiners about the site; here's ACCUWEATHER reporting on the issue - AL GORE - STILL A LIAR.


I looked at those links. They say absolutely nothing. I mean, there are words and everything but nothing, not a single thing that proves anything. Just empty phrases from websites I've never heard of. Have you ever read it yourself?



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 07:25 AM
link   
Can I buy some pot from you?

How are any other claims that are made any different?

[edit on 7-9-2007 by forsakenwayfarer]



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 07:34 AM
link   
I think, honestly, that you "forsakenwayfarer" are afraid. Scared #less over the upcoming disasters that linger overhead because you can not live in a world where you are deprived of your materialistic needs. Or you just don't know better. Either way the earth is bleeding and you are not willing to take any of the blame for it. I know that I am one of those to blame because I live in the western consumer-empire, still I do what little I can to minimize the burden I put on the enviroment.


Originally posted by forsakenwayfarer
Point being - I don't buy it. We have a 10% view of a BILLION YEAR OLD SYSTEM IN ACTION.

The planet was covered to a rough extent of about 50% with ICE ten thousand years ago.


Ok, when was the last time the earth held 6 billion inhabitants (and counting) cutting down rainforest at a crazy pace, burning oil and coal as if there was no tomorrow, sucking the soil dry from the needs we have? When was that? Oh, yeah, that never happened until now and we don't know what the f**k is gonna be the result of that.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 07:39 AM
link   
Once again, when presented with an opposing viewpoint, most followers of "global warming" and "zomg climate CRISIS" retreat, and violently attack.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 07:57 AM
link   
Ok, like most GW critics it's all "KA-BOOM" eyes and ears shut, head into the sand and pretend all is well. I'm sorry, but your claims are illogical at best.

Why would anyone go through such effort to lie about GW? What is the point of that? I don't know.

Why would anyone go through such effort to lie about that there is NOT any GW going about? Maybe because they desperatly need to keep the fossile fuel industry running. What is the point of that? Money and control.

You are far out there man, sorry to say but it's the ugly thruth. Get used to it or change viewpoint and come back into the game.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 08:03 AM
link   
Why would anyone lie about global warming you ask? Well, looks like I have an answer for you. a ~73million dollar answer.

This is quite the lucrative enterprise for Gore, his movie;

...has grossed over $24 million in the U.S. and over $49 million worldwide as of June 3, 2007, making it the third-highest-grossing documentary in the U.S. to date (after Fahrenheit 9/11 and March of the Penguins).

From wiki's article on An Inconvenient truth.

[edit on 7-9-2007 by forsakenwayfarer]



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
You know what saddens me?

The United States is turning something that affects the whole planet into a party-political issue.

You're shooting the messenger.

Read the message.



relevance? what does this post have to do with climate?

i mean i'm actually trying to back my points up and make sense, all i ever heard from you in this thread was veiled accusations.

i'm not doubting for one second that f-ex. Alpine glaciers or those on Greenland are melting, i'm just trying to put things in perspective: nothing of this is 'unprecedented' the causes in the past certainly weren't manmade, the question whether today's are can be answered with a conditional 'Yes' but focusing on CO2 alone is beyond ignorant. the extremism displayed by many people, see


Originally posted by zeeon
..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.



this post was of course directed at me, but nowhere did i say that it was all a lie, just that significant details, especially conflicting ones were left out on purpose. omission + intention to deceive is at least as bad as outright lying. has the thought ever crossed your mind that you might be wrong? of course not.

none of these 'countermeasures' are designed to help the environment, if they did, it would have to be strictly accidential. think flourescent bulbs, why toss the working transformer coils along with the lamp? why not plug them in and keep the expensive coils? doy ou think i'm a genius for coming up with such a simple idea? nope, people feel good when buying 'green products' no matter if they contain mercury and are built for extra profit.

many things could instantly be improved, from refridgerators which are currently venting into heated spaced during the winter to lighting by LEDs instead of incandescent bulbs, solutions exist,

the issue is people who are keen to jump on any and every 'bandwagon' so they can wield their 'good conscience' like a weapon against the 'unbelievers'.


you know what? i'm done with this, emotional appeal without any substance makes for a useless conversation.

[edit on 9.7.2007 by Long Lance]



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 08:15 AM
link   
I would quote the above for truth, but it is against the TOS. Instead you get my star.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 08:20 AM
link   
I think it's great that his documentary became so succsessful, that means that a lot of people saw, and will see it. If that generates money, it's all very logic isn't it? I mean, he did try to get his message out didn't he? He made the movie and he owns the rights to it, doesn't he?

73 million dollars is nothing in the petro-economic world that spreads the rumor that there is no GW.

Anyway, it doesn't seem like any of us are gonna change opinion anytime soon so lets drop this.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Raud
I think it's great that his documentary became so succsessful, that means that a lot of people saw, and will see it. If that generates money, it's all very logic isn't it? I mean, he did try to get his message out didn't he? He made the movie and he owns the rights to it, doesn't he?

73 million dollars is nothing in the petro-economic world that spreads the rumor that there is no GW.

Anyway, it doesn't seem like any of us are gonna change opinion anytime soon so lets drop this.



No, lets not.
Why don't we start talking about the exact 'carbon footprint' that was made BY the film itself? The toxic chemicals used in production of the film, the petrol used to transport the film, the private jets that flew Gore around to screenings and production(because Gore is "too good" for public transportation.)?
Carbon neutral. Yeah. Right.
The ONLY good I see coming from this film is that proceeds are being donated.
The only problem is that only Al's PERSONAL profits were donated. The rest went to... you got it right, more big companies burning more fossil fuels. Vicious cycle, no?
No, let's not drop this.

[edit on 7-9-2007 by forsakenwayfarer]



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
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?


LOL - I'm using common sense to dispute your "evidence." don't get mad at me because your pulling outdated and removed information from the web archive and trying to pass it off as current information.

So the fact that NASA operates satellites is enough to help convince you that global warming is a sham? Despite the plethora of other well established academic and governmental agencies that devote their time and power to study geogology and the earth? Well it's not enough to convince this intelligent, open minded, common sense thinker. And neither is the "The Global Warming Swindle" documentary.

And by the way, you are the one who is pulling data that floats your boat - and helps your agenda - not me. I don't, and shouldn't have to quote the miryad of available, consensual data that supports global warming.

It is people like you who try to refute the obvious that are reaching for any piece of supporting information to back your cause. Realistically, if global warming is really happening - your hurting, not helping.
Get real and try to understand that either way - wether or not global warming is really happening - being "green" is a good thing and we should all do it, not find excuses to be yet another lazy american.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by forsakenwayfarer
No, lets not.
Why don't we start talking about the exact 'carbon footprint' that was made BY the film itself? The toxic chemicals used in production of the film, the petrol used to transport the film, the private jets that flew Gore around to screenings and production(because Gore is "too good" for public transportation.)?
Carbon neutral. Yeah. Right.
The ONLY good I see coming from this film is that proceeds are being donated.
The only problem is that only Al's PERSONAL profits were donated. The rest went to... you got it right, more big companies burning more fossil fuels. Vicious cycle, no?
No, let's not drop this.


Ok, but maybe these "footprints" were something like a necessary evil to get the message out. Or maybe you have some revolutinary idea of how to make such production 100% enviromentaly friendly and without the use of carbon-based power? I see no way out of that problem, but in the end the result of the information spread should result in the problem being solved. It's all about spreading awareness.
And about Al's travels; you know that he has a pretty busy scedule to fill with lectures here and there. He needs to go places and he needs to do it fast. Should he take the train to Europe? Bus to the far east? Ride a bike from N.Y. to L.A?
And which should these big companies be? Do we have names and proofs that such transactions were made?

If you won't drop, nor would I.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by zeeon
Chupa -

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


Okay, But I did feel a little singled out as you only quoted me.


And yes I do agree that CO2 contributes to some warming (it is a greenhouse gas after all). I just don't think its the central cause of the 'climate change' that we are experiencing now.

(Quick message to admriker444: Sorry if this whole thing has become a bit of a thread-jack, I know its a little off what you were asking lol
)



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by zeeon


LOL - I'm using common sense to dispute your "evidence." don't get mad at me because your pulling outdated and removed information from the web archive and trying to pass it off as current information.


when i posted the link less than two weeks ago it was still very current, only aftet it had gotten too many views was it removed. i've seen it dozens of times and i wonder why the web archive iss till up tbh.

originally posted at www.abovetopsecret.com...

btw. what does amount to 'current' anyway? 2002 (like the article in question), 2003 or only past 2006..? 07/2007 maybe?

Q: what are you talking about???

my advice is to get real and stop dissing NASA for not properly removing incriminating information. my poits still stand as long as all you have is FUD. if large portions of the Antarctic buck the trend, you'll have to acknowledge it, refute it - or be accused of intellectual dishonesty.

btw, you're dismissing Newscientist, The Times and NASA, all at the same time. rest assured i will keep this thread bookmarked (unless it ends in the deleted folder) in case i ever see you pull similar stunts elsewhere.



So the fact that NASA operates satellites is enough to help convince you that global warming is a sham? Despite the plethora of other well established academic and governmental agencies ..



there's a quote which goes

'he who uses authority instead of deliberation is not using his intellect but his memory'

while you're at it, read the thread linked above, it's only two posts anyway, then come back and refute my claims one by one.


your alledged 100.000 papers predicting our doom mean squat if the basis of their claims is false. the Antarctic ice sheet melting? says who? i don't need a 'plethora of well established academic and government (including NASA?) agencies' (wtf is an academic agency anyway?) to tell me that three weeks longer pack ice seasons go well with global warming - do you? to put it bluntly, watching the ice sheets until disintegration while counting days does not require a PhD.



And by the way, you are the one who is pulling data that floats your boat - and helps your agenda - not me. I don't, and shouldn't have to quote the miryad of available, consensual data that supports global warming.


science is not based on consensus, it's based on verifiable (and falsifiable) experiment. since there's no way to test, GW is a safe proposition, obviously. if it does not come to pass, a) most will have forgotten and b) it was probably the air tax. this win/win type makes it inherently unscientific, of course (but it could of course still come true - just like Nostradamus' predictions)



It is people like you who try to refute the obvious that are reaching for any piece of supporting information to back your cause. Realistically, if global warming is really happening - your hurting, not helping.
Get real and try to understand that either way - wether or not global warming is really happening - being "green" is a good thing and we should all do it, not find excuses to be yet another lazy american.



obvious? you know what's obvious? that you wouldn't accept any source that says something you don't want to hear. while we are at it, please tell us what it would take to convince you AGW was in fact a sham? if i'm bringing data you didn't know of, including three links, none of them to conspiratorial sources, it's automatically cherry-picking. it can't be bias or lack of research on part of the alarmists, can it?!

realistically, no matter if GW is happening, the 'war on climate' is already hurting, for the various reasons outlined before, think Brazil, think soil depletion, think diverting funds from more pressing issues like chemicals and heavy metals and last but not least, food quality standards, which fuel crops erode without a doubt.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 03:07 PM
link   
please take this arguement elsewhere. Im the OP and I never once mentioned anything to start a global warming debate.

Again, my point was the nefarious folks behind this movement



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join