It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Gools
What does this debate really mean?
Here's what irks me about this debate.
I don't believe for a moment that humans can burn over 84 million barrels of oil products per day while having zero effect. The nature and magnitude of those effects are up for debate and research of course, but there has to be some! Thermodynamics says so.
Now, there is plenty of evidence that the climate is changing (and I prefer the term climate change rather than 'global warming' since Europe may find itself in a new ice age) and has always been in a state of change.
The problem I have with the "global warming deniers" ... is that they seem to be saying humans have no effect whatsoever on the environment and that we can keep burning fossil fuels to our heart's content, polluting our rivers, lakes and oceans and that anybody who says otherwise is a moron. They refuse to change anything about how our economic paradigm works or how we live our lives. It looks to me like some kind of "Hummer Owners of the World Unite!" battle cry.
Originally posted by Muaddib
You see, the only thing that is going to come out of "blaming mankind for climate change", is that we are going to be "taxed to our ears" with "carbon credits", or some other gimmick for a global tax.
I agree that this is where we are heading, but I have to ask something. Regardless of the climate change issue, if such measures result in greater efficiency, better technology, less pollution and cleaner air and water, would that really be so bad?
If "global warming" scare mongering is what it takes for humans to clean up their act, maybe we should fully support it?
Originally posted by TruthWithin
I know that 1000's of planes flying around at any given time, burning MILLIONs of gallons of jet fuel everyday is bad for the atmosphere.
The controversy stems from the fact that high-altitude emissions - from nine to 13 kilometres up for subsonic flights and higher for supersonic - cause disproportionately more warming than those at ground level, anywhere from 50 per cent to four times as much, making its global-warming role more significant than its emissions tally alone would indicate.
Part of the worry is due to contrails, the thin vapour trails from jets that crisscross the sky above many of the world's most-travelled air routes. Contrails resemble artificial cirrus clouds, trapping heat, although there is no scientific consensus about the size of their leavening effect on global warming.
Originally posted by melatonin
Learning about the carbon cycle might be a good idea. The CO2 emitted by fossil fuels has been locked up out of the carbon cycle for millions of years. Releasing it all in a few hundred years, which took millions to store, can't be a good thing, no?
Originally posted by robert z
If the CO2 was locked up for millions of years, where was it before it was locked up?
Can you really say with a straight face that the people who promote the global warming theories do not have political or self-serving interests in sounding the alarm? Do you think they are all altruistic, unbiased researchers?
Originally posted by traderonwallst
What makes up 36% of the ocean floor? Active volcanoes. Now these active volcanoes do not contribute to the CO2 being measured in the atmosphere because it never leaves the oceans. Know wahat aactive volcanoes due to the oceans? Raises the temperature level. Know what else active volcanoes underwater due? They produce basalt and lots of it. What does producing basalt under water due? It raises ocean levels. HMMMMM rising sea levels, rising water temps..... Sounds like little evil men are living under the ocean setting volcanoes off.
Originally posted by melatonin The basic science is solid and irrefutable, even the likes of Pat Michaels and Dickie Lindzen accept that humans are having an impact. They just question how much.
Originally posted by robert z
So who is projected to impact global warming the most in the next 100 years? The 3 billion people in China and India or the 300 million in the U.S.?
Do you have any idea what the opinion of the Chinese scientists is regarding global warming?
Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
The carbon tax wasn't what they were aiming for 5 years ago but now that it's a reality, they're not going to blink an eye before capitalizing on it.
Originally posted by nixie_nox
People who don't think we can contribute to global warming can do a little test for me. Go to the nearest running car and suck on the tail pipe for 15 minutes and tell me how you feel afterwards.
Originally posted by Fang
reply to post by traderonwallst
Of course, those dumb oceanorgraphers forgot about the volcanoes.
Originally posted by centurion1211
reply to post by FreeThinkerIdealist
And I'm getting tired of people that can't think clearly enough to understand that if global warming is not being caused by mankind, that there is most likely nothing mankind can do to stop it. Least of all by following the preachings/screachings of a global warming hypocrite. Glaring case of the blind leading the deaf - or is it the other way around?
Look at the news on this subject. The tide is clearly turning against gore's position. If this issue is another "feel good agenda item" for you, then go ahead and feel good about it yourself. Just don't expect the rest of us to blindly join you following in gore's footsteps.
For background, read the attached comments from one of the world's leading meteorologists:
ONE of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works".
Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth. ...
"We're brainwashing our children," said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."
And most troubling:
"It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants."
Originally posted by Fang
Phew! thank god for that! I can now ignore the other 98% of the worlds established scientifc opinion and take my 911 turbo for a spin, before coming home and relaxing under my patio heater and book a long haul flight to the Maldives! I'm with you pal, screw the Polar Bears!