Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

New Study Explodes Human-Global Warming Story

page: 2
31
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
reply to post by jimbo999
 


The temperature of our surrounding planets are all heating up as well. Is that caused by our carbon emission? No, it's not. If you haven't learned anything about the ties between OPEC and world governments, it's that they're involved with every single industrialized nation. The profits they'll make with a carbon tax and the existing (non existent) carbon reforms they're putting on cars right now will DESTROY any profits made by conventional methods.

[edit on 10-12-2007 by DeadFlagBlues]


What scientific proof do you have of 'other planets' also heating up? I'm talking legitimate proof here. Want to actually SEE global warming in action? SEE the carbon in the air? If you live in any part of the industrialised world where good sunsets are common in the summer - and if you're 35 or older - take a look at the ugly brown stain that our sunsets have become. THERE is your carbon... It has no effect? Sorry, that's nosense...

J.




posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by jimbo999
 


If you'd read my posts, I talked about the differences of climate change and pollution. They're two different things and need to be addressed differently and accordingly.

And before you go on making a fool of yourself any further..



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 


The article states it has "minor" effects on global climate change, but none liken to what is currently taking place. The air quality argument is definitely one to go over though. C02 is definitely making it's rounds on the environment one way or another.


The definitive proof is ALREADY here. Ice core samples dating back some 800,000 years or more. Never in those 800,000 years has CO2 been as high as it is right now.

LINK: news.bbc.co.uk...

The rise can also be linked perfectly with the onset of the Industrial Revolution. 'Nuff said I'm afraid.

J.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by jimbo999
 


Here check this out!
ATS THREAD GLOBAL COOLING

And who lived in Antarctica 800,000 years ago? Let them go take a sample in Iraq, or Iran oh wait there is no ice to take samples of and confirm their details, therefore that is not proof.

[edit on 10-12-2007 by Equinox99]



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadFlagBlues
 


Actually, the surrounding planets heating up argument is bunk. I'll try to track down the link but if I don't post it, I'm sure someone else (maybe melatonin) will post it.

I do believe that the anthropomorphic CO2 argument is being overplayed and overemphasised, though. The potential income from carbon taxing being widespread is to great to dismiss. Not too mention the fact that most ice age cycles in the Earth's history seem to have ended before CO2 quantities increased.

However there are human activities that can produce a change in the global climate system that aren't being pushed as aggressively. Some examples include:
  • Livestock breeding (methane release)
  • Forestry practices in the equatorial & temperate regions (has to do with surface albedo/surface reflectivity and CO2 sinks)
  • Farming practices that use copious quantities of ammonia (oxidises to N2O)
  • Air travel (particulate matter and water vapour promoting high altitude cloud formations, resulting in a blanket that lets heat in but stops it from radiating out)
To name a few off the top of my head. Now, notice the common theme in the list -- they are all economic activities vital to our society. It is hard to legislate policy for these without impacting the overall economy.

Using carbon dioxide as the main scapegoat however allows policy makers to tax the people instead. It's not that we humans aren't affecting the planet's overall climate that's at issue here. It's the fact that the issues listed above are not given enough consideration that irks me.

Edit: Links to articles related to my post above:

On forestry management - Planting Trees Doesn't Necessarily Mitigate Global Warming
On farming practices - Will anhydrous ammonia costs tip the balance in the battle for acres? (courtesy of plumranch)
On air travel - Aircraft contrails contributing to global warming?
On the last Ice Age - Carbon dioxide did not end the last Ice Age
On the role of the Sun - Melatonin's post on ATS with multiple links refuting the solar argument

[edit on 10-12-2007 by Beachcoma]



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
reply to post by jimbo999
 


If you'd read my posts, I talked about the differences of climate change and pollution. They're two different things and need to be addressed differently and accordingly.

And before you go on making a fool of yourself any further..


They are NOT two differnt things at all - they are linked.
As for your evidence for 'Solar Heating' - well, your own link makes YOU look the fool I'm afraid. Here's a quote from you link..

QUOTE:

'Earth is heating up lately, but so are Mars, Pluto and other worlds in our solar system, leading some scientists to speculate that a change in the sun’s activity is the common thread linking all these baking events.

Others argue that such claims are misleading and create the false impression that rapid global warming, as Earth is experiencing, is a natural phenomenon'

Note the word 'some' in the first paragraph. ie. 1 or 2 people probably on the Enron payrolls...

Kinda puts the shutters down on the 'Solar' theory really...


J.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimbo999


I wonder how much Enron & Shell paid this guy to publish this report???



Hmmm....Well maybe you should do your own homework. Didn't Enron go chapter 11 a few years ago. I highly doubt they are paying anyone these days anything substantial. The only thing left of Enron is a shell corporation around to pay fines and stuff.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by jimbo999
 


Did you know modern journalism to be deemed "credible" has report it's news in a non-bias manner? That's why you see a "direction" and then supporting arguments from both sides.

And I understand the "greenhouse" gas effect, but air quality and global warming aren't necessarily related. Let's say global warming is mostly due to the temperature increase in the sun. We can't combat that, but we should still make steps towards cleaning up our environment full circle.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by traderonwallst
 


Poor guy... I think he means Exxon.


He doesn't even know who he's against.

Another ATS Don Quixote. Fighting windmills with only the ferociousness an oblivious man can.

[edit on 10-12-2007 by DeadFlagBlues]



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Equinox99
reply to post by jimbo999
 


Here check this out!
ATS THREAD GLOBAL COOLING

And who lived in Antarctica 800,000 years ago? Let them go take a sample in Iraq, or Iran oh wait there is no ice to take samples of and confirm their details, therefore that is not proof.

[edit on 10-12-2007 by Equinox99]


Huh? Sorry?? What does it matter 'who' lived in the Artic or Antartic 800,00 years ago? What does that have anything to do with anything??

It's simple science that any fool can understand - well, hopefully.

Every year for 800,000 years it snows....the contents of each winters' atmospheric contents are captured and preserved in that snow....the snow is slowly compacted year by year until it becomes ice....the ice is drilled out by scientists...the scientists analyze the chemical contents of the ice to discover what global temperatures and atmosheric CO2 levels were for that given year..... scientists thereby figure out that CO2 levels are at their highest in 800,00 years.

You have a problem understanding this?? Seems pretty straightforward to me.

J.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Beachcoma
 


I know Beachcoma. You know how I feel about the environment. I was the one to "break" the story about the meat industry in regards to the methane production, but there are other factors that we have to consider when "fighting global warming." I do believe this is partially a "natural phenomenon" and I also know that what we are doing as a human species is only accelerating it, ruining all other elements of our world in the process.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by jimbo999
 


What I can't believe, that on one of the best conspiracy web sites out there, no one seems to see the BIGGEST CONSPIRACY put forth since Y2K!!!!!!!!!

Wake up people. I was working down on Wall Street when that one was thought up..... A ton of money was made be a lot of people. This one will make that one look small. Follow the money. just don;t stop when you see an oil Company. Go deeper. Trust me on this one!!!!!!!


Everyone thinks the NWO is taking over....Well, what better way than to have everyone on the same page about living green. They will be in every aspect of your life if you let them. Don't let the United Nations get control of your lives!




[edit on 10-12-2007 by traderonwallst]



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadFlagBlues
 


Yeah. That's why I didn't post any links for livestock and methane release. You already know about that.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by jimbo999
 


Oh I see so then how come the Ice Age ended about 7,000 years ago?
I am pretty sure they did not have oil companies, cars, houses like ours and such. So I think the CO2 build up effecting our ice age is false.
Or the fact that people are making millions off of global warming...does that not strike an odd flag? If not then I suggest you keep feeding your money to the people who throw up more CO2 emissions air then each individual.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Beachcoma
 


We're definitely contributing to it, as you and I both know. I'm not saying "start burning out and driving V8's again," but there are definitely other factors playing into our climate change. We need to limit ourselves as a people, but people who think Al Gore is the "all knowing" on the subject, need to recognize the obvious front and cartel these men are setting up, as they always do.

Jimbo over here is the reason they will go unquestioned in their pursuit of more money and power.

[edit on 10-12-2007 by DeadFlagBlues]



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
reply to post by traderonwallst
 


Poor guy... I think he means Exxon.


He doesn't even know he's against.

Another ATS Don Quixote. Fighting windmills with only the ferociousness an oblivious man can.


Well, - coming from someone who can't even spell or string an english sentence together - I find that highly amusing. And yes - I meant Exxon of course....it's called a typo.

If you're going to try and refute thousands of legitimate scientists, I'd advise you to at least come up with something a little more credible than 'solar warming'.

The only 'Don Quixotes' around here are the poor fools who waste everyone elses time expounding theories that are actually hair-brained propaganda...

J.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Legalizer
 


First off....The whole Global Warming thing is nothing more than a theory.

Secondly, its not an opinion piece done by News Max, its reporting on an actual study and report. Like I said in my first posting, you will deny and disagree, because it is not put out by the UN and its politcal arm, the IPCC.

Please, your arguements do more to invalidate itself by saying theories are just that. No science. Taking number and making up charts and graphs can be called science. But when you start assuming things and calling it global warming, its still a theory, regardless of what the charts and graphs say. What is your PROOF!!!!!!!!!! There is not 1 piece of evidence that proves GLOBAL WARMING even exists. Even the United Nations has gone to begin calling it climate change and not global warming. This way, when temperatures go back down, they can still blame it on man and business.

Wake up, and get out from under the rock called the United Nations and start thinking for yourself. Your missing the biggest conspiracy ever puportrated!!!!



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Beachcoma
 


I was wondering when you were gonna show up. Just not a GW thread with out ya!

Hope your doing well!



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Equinox99
reply to post by jimbo999
 


Oh I see so then how come the Ice Age ended about 7,000 years ago?
I am pretty sure they did not have oil companies, cars, houses like ours and such. So I think the CO2 build up effecting our ice age is false.
Or the fact that people are making millions off of global warming...does that not strike an odd flag? If not then I suggest you keep feeding your money to the people who throw up more CO2 emissions air then each individual.


You don't understand the science of ice cores, do you??

Do you think that it stopped snowing 7000 years ago too?? It snow every year up there....so EVERY year - including the last 7000 years - the data has been trapped in the ice. That's 800,000 years worth. Make sense now??

Hmmm...this thread is attracting some errmm...wierd posts. Not just yours either...


J.

J.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimbo999

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
reply to post by traderonwallst
 


Poor guy... I think he means Exxon.


He doesn't even know he's against.

Another ATS Don Quixote. Fighting windmills with only the ferociousness an oblivious man can.


Well, - coming from someone who can't even spell or string an english sentence together - I find that highly amusing. And yes - I meant Exxon of course....it's called a typo.

If you're going to try and refute thousands of legitimate scientists, I'd advise you to at least come up with something a little more credible than 'solar warming'.

The only 'Don Quixotes' around here are the poor fools who waste everyone elses time expounding theories that are actually hair-brained propaganda...

J.


Here scientists petition against GW

But wait! these scientists are not any credible because they are against global warming!, This reminds me of scientists in a Christian world trying to prove the Earth is round.






top topics



 
31
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join