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.

 

Why do people conspire that global warming is fake?

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck


Hmmmm, so you can't do better than this?



Not so much "can't" as "won't". I hope you didn't spend too much time typing all of that.

Good day.




posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Good Reverend Roger
reply to post by scientist
 


Well, yeah, because the sun produces a constant amount of heat.



actually, the sun is a variable star so that's not true. What's true is that the amount of heat it creates isn't so varied after you get past the earth's atmosphere. Regardless, the heat of the sun could very well be affecting "global warming' just as much, or moreso than cars and cows farting.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by scientist

Originally posted by The Good Reverend Roger
reply to post by scientist
 


Well, yeah, because the sun produces a constant amount of heat.



actually, the sun is a variable star so that's not true. What's true is that the amount of heat it creates isn't so varied after you get past the earth's atmosphere. Regardless, the heat of the sun could very well be affecting "global warming' just as much, or moreso than cars and cows farting.


Didn't you just say in a post or two back that you were not saying the sun = global warming? and now you are saying it is? despite being linked to the scientific dismissal of your idea?

your floundering is not worth my time, there is no point in talking with the willfully blind.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by scientist

Originally posted by The Good Reverend Roger
reply to post by scientist
 


Well, yeah, because the sun produces a constant amount of heat.



actually, the sun is a variable star so that's not true. What's true is that the amount of heat it creates isn't so varied after you get past the earth's atmosphere. Regardless, the heat of the sun could very well be affecting "global warming' just as much, or moreso than cars and cows farting.


How?

There must be data somewhere showing the variations, right?



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 12:26 AM
link   
what i hear is that C20 is the the main think driving climate change and humans contribute to less then 1 percent of that and australia contribute to less then that 1 percent by humans.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 12:34 AM
link   


Also, taking into account that few people are still driving cars that old, as well as the fact that we do not know how far they are driving, nor do we know from the question exactly what type and how much pollution is being produced by said factory, I would say the question itself is ultimately unanswerable and irrelevant.


Actually all that stuff can be figured out. That is why high schools still teach basic algebra.
Step one: Research what percentage of the American Population work in factories.
Step two: Research the percentage of Americans who still drive cars that are made on or before 1998.
Step three: Research the Average commuting mileage for the American Blue collar worker
Step four: Research the average pollution of cars made on and before 1998 in a step by step process.
Step five: Research the amount of pollution factories give off.
Step six: devise a Hypothesis Equation.

This is the methodology of scientists, so yes it is relevant, along your written understanding trying to prove anything scientifically has now become irrelevant to the discussion of global warming, because all for and all against use this method, anything now proven by scientist holds no ground and thus can not be used to prove that global warming exists.

AAAS
Which brings me to my point, global warming facts are based on pay checks, checks written to a+b/c(d-e)*f=biased info. No scientist gets paid to try and figure it out on the bases of it is or it is not. He gets paid when he aims his work for what will pay him, after all there only human and they have bills too. If 95% of the scientist get paid to prove that global warming exists, then they will make an equation that equals a large pay check in there pockets.

So the methodology is there, but the scientists who use it are legal con artists, what do we do?

MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND!!!
Is that so hard to do? I read post after post after post, and many posters are giving facts pulled from out side sources with no citations, or one line ignorant responses. Don't pay someone to think when you can do it yourself. The problems I see in the global warming issue are the same ones I see in the economy, and in government.

No one can make up there mind for themselves, so nothing gets done at all, how can it, if no one thinks for themselves.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 02:34 AM
link   
There are two extreme takes on the global warming issue. One is the ocean levels will rise to the point where Colorado borders the Pacific ocean and Canada will have a climate like Jamaica. The other extreme take is that absolutely nothing is going on with the earth's climate and there is no cause for concern whatsoever. The majority of scientists have views between these two takes and believe there is cause for concern.

One area of debate amongst scientist is interpreting data about the earth's temperature. So far, a 1 degree swing in temperature has been measured. Scientists debate what the cause of the 1 degree swing is, whether it is due to "global warming" or some natural cycle. They also have doubts as to whether the 1 degree swing is really indicative of any real planetwide trend or a statistical blip. This is not to say scientists do not feel the data is a cause for concern. You can analogize this to going to a doctor. The doctor runs a preliminary test and finds a high level of something in your blood. He may not be able to conclude you have cancer (or some other nasty disease) but it can be indicative something is wrong.

Another area of debate scientists have is how much carbon dioxide the earth's atmosphere can take, and whether or not the earth is currently at or near the breaking point. There are natural processes like photosynthesis though which the earth can lower the ammount of Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Scientists are not sure natural processes can remove the extra carbon dioxide our use of fossil fuels create. Irregardles of what side of the debate they are on, most scientists are concerned about Carbon dioxide. To analogize the situation to medicine, imagine if doctors are not sure whether it takes 3 mg or 5 mg of a particular poison to kill a person your size. You are not going to take 4 mg (or even 2 mg) of the poison. Simlarly, scientists are not going to recommend increasing carbon dioxide emissions and are certainly going to advocate lowering them.

Along those same lines scientists dispute whether carbon dioxide from fossil fuels is what people should be most focussed about. Many feel methane, from increased production of cows, is a greater concern than carbon dioxide and perhaps the real cause of global warming. Carbon dioxide can be absorbed by photosynthesis and other processes, while methane cannot. Therefore, many scientists feel the push should be towards lowering methane emissions and not fossil fuel emissions. This is not to say they feel everyone should go around driving Hummers. To draw ana analogy to medicine, imagine there is this poisonous plant. Scientits are not quite sure whether compound A or compound B makes the plant poisonous. Suffice to say, you are not going to want to eat a genetically modified version of the plant that lacks compound A just because there is reason to believe compound A is the compound that makes the plant deadly. Similarly scientists are not going to advocate that only carbon dioxide or only methane be reduced.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 03:14 AM
link   
I believe it's because at some point during the early 80's (this was before i was even born, i think) there was a man whom appeared on a television broadcast explaining why he believed Global Warming (or at least, the conventional theory thereof) was inherently fallacious, and as such he attempted to explain why he believed that this was so.

I do believe he received quite a large amount of backing from the media and certain element of the British establishment (considering this was on the BBC) which supported his beliefs, and as such he managed to sway quite a proportion of the peoples of the times not to fall for the idea of 'global warming'.

From there, children witnessing this resurgence of interest in global warming and asked their parents about it, and some of these parents would remember that broadcast and would tell their children not to pay any attention to it, perhaps labelling it 'media-hype'.

Thus providing children, and those seeking a higher intellectual standing, a position from which to damn others for following the hype, or at least seeming to do so.

This would also explain why there have been a number of respected theorists in the scientific society whom have remained remarkably quiet over the issue.

But of course, who knows?

I might be wrong!





EDIT: Just for the fun, i know there will be people who may be interested in knowing where i stand on the issue, if merely from reading my post.

I'll explain as such - Pollution is having a negative impact on the environment NOT because of some o-zone problem or some cataclysmic bollocks like that, but because of the minute changes in the balance of the chemicals in earth's atmosphere caused by the incredible influx of methane released by various sources on earth (pete bogs, agricultural revolution, acidic rain, etc).

And for the record, i don't think the consquences are going to be anywhere near as dire as certain hollywood films have submitted to the imagination.

[edit on 2-12-2007 by Throbber]



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Animal
Didn't you just say in a post or two back that you were not saying the sun = global warming? and now you are saying it is? despite being linked to the scientific dismissal of your idea?

your floundering is not worth my time, there is no point in talking with the willfully blind.


perhaps you are unaware of the difference between the statements "the sun is causing global warming" and "the sun could be affecting it"

Once you wrap your head around the difference, maybe you can take me off your enemy list. Apparently you don't like the fact I haven't accepted this hoax as the force-fed mockery it is.

[edit on 2-12-2007 by scientist]



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 04:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Maverickhunter
 


If it's proven then can you post a peer reviewed journal documenting it's effects, while also prove that it's caused by us? i really don't think u can. I dont mean to be harsh, but before you make absolute claims can you at least back it up with some credible info?



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Maverickhunter
 

why do some say global warming is not mainly mans doing ?------------------first of all the name given to the bad weather/shifts is wrong---------global weather shift would be a more accurate name--------thou it doesnt sound pretty.i saw a tv clip last night-----it shows in canada that the cold that would normally be stuck up in canadas artic region is not there-----it has shifted down lower to where most of us live and our milder temperature has shifted up north.no doubt the mass cutting down of trees thru out the world affects our climate-----------but do you really think all the smoke we produce with our cars and factories really is greater than the smoke produced by all the worlds volcanoes?scientists that study the sun say it is producing a greater output of energy at this time which they say is more responsible than us for the so called global warming----------though i also personally think we are being punished for our sins against G-D, the creation and each other as a reason for this being allowed to happen to us.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 08:58 AM
link   
Although I believe in fuel efficiency and alternative energy sources, I also believe global warming is not fully man-made. My explanation? Planets in our solar system, even some that are farther from the Sun than Earth, are experiencing hotter temperatures. As far as we know, there aren't any cars or industrial revolution taking place there.

I believe the establishment wants to add another tax, masked as a global warming tax. Also, no matter how many times we increase the MPG in cars, gas is still king. Oil companies would still be making money, as more people buy cars.

One last thing. Why do you think the petrochemical industry donates so much money to environmentalists? So that environmentalists continue protesting/banning places like Anwar and others. The result? Less drilling means less supply, while demand grows. Bottom line: higher prices.

Just my personal opinion.



[edit on 2-12-2007 by manticore]



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 09:25 AM
link   
"The only evidence I've seen from any source regarding global warming was that the sun is getting hotter, and having more frequent solar flares, which correlates to the uncommon temperatures."

Well maybe you need to dig a little deeper then...

"I only said there have been studies showing that a raise in the frequency of solar flares correlating to higher temperatures. "

"again, I never said solar flares were the cause of global warming, but that the sun is conveniently left out of most studies and is rarely mentioned in the media. It's always the fault of cars."

true but only after the scientific community researched this hypothesis and
dismissed it as not a likely cause...

"actually, the sun is a variable star so that's not true. What's true is that the amount of heat it creates isn't so varied after you get past the earth's atmosphere. Regardless, the heat of the sun could very well be affecting "global warming' just as much, or more so than cars and cows farting."

true it could have an additional effect, but it is in the data that it cannot be
more than cars or cows asses....

"perhaps you are unaware of the difference between the statements "the sun is causing global warming" and "the sun could be affecting it"
Once you wrap your head around the difference, maybe you can take me off your enemy list. Apparently you don't like the fact I haven't accepted this hoax as the force-fed mockery it is."

first, read your statements for yourself...you are floundering, maybe spend a little more time clarifying your statements then you wont find yourself in a situation where you are repeating yourself. beyond that try using some data as well, i have been nice enough to provide data for my points. If you really have found data that shows the sun as responsible then please provide it for the forums education.

second, the only " group involved in "force feeding" information on global warming is the media. they are busy raising concerns about "consensus" and "proof" on behalf of the corporations who are feeling their hegemonic positions threatened...in the scientific community there is a strong consensus. So it seems to me you are the one regurgitating baseless information crammed into your head by an over zealous media.

Honestly I think its funny you call yourself my enemy....I am a little too old to play like that man, I dont have time for hate...you are currently listed as my "respected foe" due to the fact you make me think and write...thats it...

edit: a missing word and some embarrassing spelling


[edit on 2-12-2007 by Animal]



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 10:00 AM
link   
ok heres a bone for ya Scientist...




In the related article publish by stanford university they say the best deduction from studies done is that the sun could play up to, but no more than, 25% of global warming...

So while you are correct it does play a roll, it is not seen as capable of playing the scale of a roll that you describe...

please do not view this post in the wrong light, although i post it to show that you are in some ways wrong i am also posting it to show that your point also has merit, to a point. in other words it is a friendly gesture, i am not trying to attack you....

edit: spelling

[edit on 2-12-2007 by Animal]



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Good morning to all you folks in ATS land! Hope everyone is well.

I've only been privy to this site for about 3 months and have enjoyed reading the posts very much. It's a good start to my day. Now I've decided that I need to weigh in on a topic. Here is goes.

It is my understanding that our planet as well as the others in our solar system revolve around our sun in an eliptical orbit, not a circular one which means that at some times we are closer to the sun than at other times. While this goes on, our sun wabbles back and forth just a bit causing these major climate changes. These changes are happening over the course of thousands of years which help explain the Global Warming. I'ts a natural cycle of the planet. And while I don't agree that our warming is a direct result from the overuse of fossil fuels, I do know that we help speed up this natural process. By what degree I'm not sure.

This planet has it's own checks and balance system which keeps itself healthy like our bodies. And the Rain Forrests are part of that system. It is like the lungs in our bodies. Sure, the Co2 levels may be at an all time high but that is only because we have eliminated a large number of these forrests. If we continue to use up these (lungs), the planet at some point won't be able to recover and will eventually sucomb to itself.

Now, I'm in complete agreement with many here that our Gov. is feeding us a bunch os BS on this topic for some reason. Wheather it's for $$$, political gain or some other synister reason, I'm not sure. But I feel that the term Global Warming has taken on a whole life of its own from what it was intended for. We are fed by the Gov. that GW is the result of (overuse of fossil fuels, depletion of ozone, overpopulation, etc. Basically man made reasons.) It's move from a scientifical idea to this is why I think people think that it is fake. Although I wouldn't use the term conspire. To conspire means to plot against or agree in secret.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by manticore
Planets in our solar system, even some that are farther from the Sun than Earth, are experiencing hotter temperatures.


Link?



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 03:50 PM
link   
There are plenty of links but here is one with exhaustive studies by Duke University:

gristmill.grist.org...



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by manticore
There are plenty of links but here is one with exhaustive studies by Duke University:

gristmill.grist.org...



Maybe you should read that article. It basically defeats the point you were trying to make earlier.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 04:48 PM
link   
I think the primary problem with global warming is that it is based on the predictions made by computers. Also, I have a difficult time believing something that is simply taken as fact. Whenever someone challenges global warming they are mocked as somehow intellectually inferior to those that believe in it. I am sure the climate is changing but to simply say that it is man's fault, especially when we know so little about the earth, is ignorant.

The beauty of science is that it can be challenged and either upheld or debunked. When an argument is not allowed to be challenged that is a bad thing



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by skoalman88
I think the primary problem with global warming is that it is based on the predictions made by computers.


partially, it is also seen in collected data...

Also, I have a difficult time believing something that is simply taken as fact. Whenever someone challenges global warming they are mocked as somehow intellectually inferior to those that believe in it.

this is possible, although i think that the "Ridicule" you are talking about is more disagreement than ridicule...

I am sure the climate is changing but to simply say that it is man's fault, especially when we know so little about the earth, is ignorant.

have you read literature on global warming? it seems like you have not because no one says it is humans alone, it is widely accepted that shifts in planetary and celestial systems contributes.

The beauty of science is that it can be challenged and either upheld or debunked. When an argument is not allowed to be challenged that is a bad thing

ok then challenge it. see this is where i do get a bit irritated with people who claim GW is all a bunch of cat hooey. there is a scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming...bring in some info that disputes this claim, that would be super duper cool. honestly what i see hidden behind these last words is the last refuge of a defeated whit. you dont like being proven wrong? well then dont say things as matters of fact when you cant support them.

The beauty of the argument FOR the reality that humans are at the center of global warming is UPHELD by the science. sure science can change as new discoveries are made but for the time being it looks like we humans are largely responsible...



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join