Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

New Study Explodes Human-Global Warming Story

page: 5
31
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimbo999
reply to post by DeadFlagBlues
 


Trust me - I really don't consider that a threat.

Slightly more intelligent? How amusing. Ever heard of Mensa? Oh, nevermind...

Fine, you stay out of my way - I'll stay out of yours...I can't be any fairer than that.

J.



Get a room you two!

[edit on 12-10--0707 by Reptoid]

Mod Note: One Line and Short Posts – Please Review This Link.
Mod Note: Please Stay on Topic



[edit on 10-12-2007 by DontTreadOnMe]




posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unit541
Alright, I'll bow out of this now, as debating this with you is obviously an exercise in futility. Did you really say that Pluto is too far from the sun to be affected by solar activity?


Nope, the point is that the earth is much closer. If the changes on pluto were due to changes is solar activity, we would sort of notice it.

Put your hand 60 inches from a light bulb. That's pluto.

Put your hand 2 inches from the light bulb. That's the earth.

A change of 2'C on pluto would be massive on earth, it also happened in a decade or so. It's generally thought that pluto is undergoing changes due to orbital variations, IIRC. It has a rather strange orbit and is a bit different than the earth in composition.


Originally posted by Beachcoma
That's simplifying it. The real scale model would have put Pluto in your neighbour's living room


Heh, t'is rather. Hopefully still makes the point.

[edit on 10-12-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 



Exactly. I think you've hit the nail on the head there. The lack of appeal for more funding to 'study' this pesky GW thing, basically proves just how seriously the global scientific community take the phenomenon.

There's no point trying to prove again & again what we already know.

It's now time to act.

J.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reptoid

Originally posted by jimbo999
reply to post by DeadFlagBlues
 


Trust me - I really don't consider that a threat.

Slightly more intelligent? How amusing. Ever heard of Mensa? Oh, nevermind...

Fine, you stay out of my way - I'll stay out of yours...I can't be any fairer than that.

J.



Get a room you two!

[edit on 12-10--0707 by Reptoid]


Heheh...no thanks - what if they snore?
But I hear you.

J.

Mod Note: One Line and Short Posts – Please Review This Link.
Mod Note: Please Stay on Topic



[edit on 10-12-2007 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by jimbo999
 


People jump on the bandwagon so easily, environmentalists NEED a big bad monster for everyone to be afraid of , or else they lose funding and have to get a real job, bummer for them. In regards to CO2 in our atmosphere, does anyone know the content of CO2 in our atmosphere?? LESS THAN 5% LESS THAN 5% AND the current temperature changes that arose in the 20th century "due to CO2" happened in what order??

By evading the truth, to pass his carbon tax which means more money for the government, al gore, the man whos home eats up 1 years worth of 400 homes of energy in one month, forgot to tell you that his data was backwards to get a point accross, he was CORRECT on two things

1) CO2 levels rose in one half of the century
2) Temperatures rose in another half of the century

But heres the twist, The temperatures rose BEFORE, IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE CENTURY before the CO2 levels increased, its science look it up, read a little before making half butted claims,

The rise in CO2 is due to warmer waters cannot hold CO2 and they are emmitted into the air.

remember... less than 5% of all atmospheric gasses are CO2, and humans are making HUGE HORRIBLE DRASTIC CLIMATE CHANGES??? i dont think so. its like say we have an eroding problem on a beach and a little boy runs off of the beach with a little sand on his feet, technically he is part of the eroding problem, but to say it IS ALL HIS FAULT?? its rediculous. this whole thing is rediculous



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


Please remember Algore is an intelectual. He invented the internet. I am by no means smart enough to do something like that, but I am smart enough to know a scam when I smell one.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Beachcoma
 


Beachcoma

I never ignore your posts. I agree with alot of what you have to say. I like the idea of recycling and improving my surroundings. I just hate hearing Global warming this, global warming that. My daughter comes home from elementary school all the time and tells me the teachers blame them for global warming. I called her teacher on this, told him that if was to continue teaching global warming he had to teach both sides. Parents are allowed to audit classes once a year and I requested to audit the next lesson on Global warming. If he ever calls me back it should be interesting and fun. I will not stand by and have my 9 year old be fed such lies by a teacher.

He told me that how he ran his class was decision. I told him, that as long as my taxes paid his salary he better re-think what he just said.

I can't wait for the next aprent teacher meetings!!!!!!



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonemaverick
It's 82 degrees here right now. 20 above average for this time of the year.


Your post means nothing without telling us where you live. Come on...

common sense in arguements please!!!!



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by jimbo999
 


Is that mensa or mesa? Exxon or Enron?

Hmmmm....... get corrected...get defensive.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Your exaggerating my words to a fairly high degree. I'm sure Scientists are just like everyone else. You seem to have placed Scientists on some kind of a pedestal and having immunity to Human frailties?

Science is an expensive endeavor. Do you really think Science can progress without funding? Funding comes from either a benevolent Government or Private means and it brings the contributors biases right along with it. Add that to the biases of the Scientists themselves and you end up with compromises, accommodations, exaggerations and my least favorite term; Spin. A Scientist is an ordinary Human Being, prone to ordinary pressures and personal biases that dictate their words, thoughts and emotions. They are not Godlike Creatures deserving of placement on a pedestal.

There are brilliant people on both sides of this debate and again I'll say that solutions can only come when the arguing stops and the cooperation begins. Science is not known for that however. Look to History for the truth. Many important discoveries are made by those who DID NOT agree with the general consensus. It takes courage to throw fate to the proverbial wind and risk funding and ridicule for the sake of truth.

50 years from now, we will undoubtedly look back on these debates and get a little chuckle at the conclusions being drawn from the tiny amount of data available and how it has been manipulated by both sides to suit their prospective opinions. I won't be around unless ET shows up with a magic formula for Youth but I'm confident enough to make that prediction.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimbo999


There's no point trying to prove again & again what we already know.

It's now time to act.

J.


What have you proven. Its still a theory. What is the accepted science? The numbers can be considered science as data, the graphs can be considered science because they match the data. But the understanding of the data still has not been accepted as science. Assumptions have been proven incorrect over and over. Interpretation of the data is subjective. Algore based his entire movie on the acceptance of the hockey stick theory. It has since been proven incorrect as they excluded data points that did not work for the hypothesis.

Please......prove the data, then claim it science, otherwise please refer to global warming, uh, climate change, up heating and cooling....as what it is. THEORY!



[edit on 10-12-2007 by traderonwallst]



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by traderonwallst

Originally posted by lonemaverick
It's 82 degrees here right now. 20 above average for this time of the year.


Your post means nothing without telling us where you live. Come on...

common sense in arguements please!!!!


I don't know about him but I posted in another of your GW threads that in Canada the winters are much shorter and the summers unbearably hot. I imagine this will be discounted as well.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by traderonwallst
I just hate hearing Global warming this, global warming that.


Yeah, I kind of dislike the fact that it's being used to explain everything. It diminishes the impact of the actual truth. But I put the blame on media distortion/sensationalism, not on scientists.

Case in point, check this headline out:
Declining water levels in the Great Lakes may signal global warming

Huh? Population/Industry using water doesn't factor in? But then at the end it does say:

“We cannot be certain that the present observed water level drop is caused by factors related to global climate change, or that it portends a long-term problem”

In other words, it's a non-story and they've no idea actually why the water level is down...

Bad journalism.

[edit on 10-12-2007 by Beachcoma]



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


Describe what you mean by shorter and unbearably hotter. Otherwise one can not comment.

Canada is a pretty big place, location (roughly) would help in commenting also. Its not uncommon for it to be warmer than normal just north of our border. Now if you were north of Hudson Bay and wearing a bathing suit in January, you might have a point. MIGHT.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by traderonwallst
 


I am heading home now. I will pick up on this later. It has been a lot of fun discussing this with everyone today.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   
David H. Douglass is trying to back up fossil fuels. He is a remedy of the "oil industry"!

He is coauther of several articles including Meltdown for Globalwarming science, together with Patrick J. Michaels and S. Fred Singer.

Now what does that have to do with things???

Dr. Patrick Michaels:

Dr. Patrick Michaels is possibly the most prolific and widely-quoted climate change skeptic scientist. He has admitted receiving funding from various fossil fuel industry sources. His latest book, published in September 2004 by the Cato Institute, is titled: Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media.
Michaels is the Chief Editor for the "World Climate Review," a newsletter on global warming funded by the Western Fuels Association. Dr. Michaels has acknowledged that 20% of his funding comes from fossil fuel sources: (www.mtn.org...) Known funding includes $49,000 from German Coal Mining Association, $15,000 from Edison Electric Institute and $40,000 from Cyprus Minerals Company, an early supporter of People for the West, a "wise use" group. He received $63,000 for research on global climate change from Western Fuels Association, above and beyond the undisclosed amount he is paid for the World Climate Report/Review. According to Harper's magazine, Michaels has recieved over $115,000 over the past four years from coal and oil interests. Michaels wrote "Sound and Fury" and "The Satanic Gases" which were published by Cato Institute. Dr. Michaels signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration. In July of 2006, it was revealed that the Intermountain Rural Electric Association "contributed $100,000 to Dr. Michaels." (abcnews.go.com...) ALEC advisor. www.heartland.org... and www.cato.org...

Source


S. Fred Singer

In a February 2001 letter to the Washington Post, Singer denied receiving funding from the oil industry, except for consulting work some 20 years prior. SEPP, however, received multiple grants from ExxonMobil, including 1998 and 2000. In addition, Singer's current CV on the SEPP website states that he served as a consultant to several oil companies. The organizations Singer has recently been affiliated with - Frontiers of Freedom, ACSH, NCPA, etc. - have recieved generous grants from Exxon on an annual basis. Singer Letter to the Editor -Washington Post February 12, 2001 It is ironic that the attempt by two environmental activists to misrepresent my credentials [letters, Feb. 6] coincides with a sustained cold spell in the United States that set a 100-year record. As for full disclosure: My resume clearly states that consulted for several oil companies on the subject of oil pricing, some 20 years ago, after publishing a monograph on the subject. My connection to oil during the past decade is as a Wesson Fellow at the Hoover Institution; the Wesson money derives from salad oil. S. FRED SINGER Singer is listed as a $500 plus contributer to the Center for Individual Rights. Singer's publications include "The Scientific Case Against the Global Climate Treaty" (SEPP, 1997), "Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate" (The Independent Institute, 1997) Singer signed the Leipzig Delcaration.

Source

And Mister David H. Douglass himself is a wellthought of Professor of physics at University of Rochester.

Well how conviniant, that he is not related to the oilindustry directly, that would have been just to obviouse!

I believe that The global warming has to do with the electromagnetics and radiations from the sun and universe too. But i also believe that Carbon dioxide has something to do with it and that it is bad for your health aswell as natures health. Atleast in the amounts we polute with every day.

So lets stop poluting...Global warming or not!

[edit on 10-12-2007 by Bluess]



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by traderonwallst
 


Southern Ontario. Last winter the ski and snowmobile industry were in panic. They couldn't open until late January. That's 2 months late.

Unbearably hot? 100F, that's too frickin hot for here.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by traderonwallst
 


I can also account for the warmer weather here in Utah. I've never played soccer in early December in my life before this year. It's been incredibly warm. The jury is still out as to "why" it's warmer, I think we can all agree on that. I think a moderate idea of global warming comes into play here as well. It's nature in conjunction with our personal everyday habits. If you buy into Al Gore and "his" idea of global warming, it would be just as bad to believe that nature's course is the only culprit behind our climate change/fluctuation.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
100F, that's too frickin hot for here.


For real?? That's hotter than the average temperatures where I live. And I'm close to the Equator!



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Beachcoma

Originally posted by intrepid
100F, that's too frickin hot for here.


For real?? That's hotter than the average temperatures where I live. And I'm close to the Equator!


You know what's worse? Living by the Great Lakes that heat comes with high humidity. It's like breathing soup.






top topics



 
31
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join