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.

 

New Study Explodes Human-Global Warming Story

page: 7
31
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by jimbo999
 


Yup, I haven't experienced heat like that since I was in LA in '78.




posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by NuclearPaul
I've got a funny feeling "global warming" was invented to serve someone's agenda. Sure the world is going through changes, but I seriously doubt we will ever be told the truth why by our politicians.

I know why - to raise taxes, and try and control the populous. Nothing has done more to free human kind than transportation and energy. Limit those two, and we're right back in the stone age.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


already another post on this. Oh yeah, I posted it earlier.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by jimbo999
 


Of course I have. Were you claiming to be a member? It was called sarcasm.

A Mensa member would have gotten that.


Mod Note: Please Stay on Topic



[edit on 10-12-2007 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimbo999


Ahh..I see. So 99% of the world's enviromental scientists have warned the world's governments of the imminent danger of Glaobal Warming based on....

nothing but a theory.

Yep - right...

J.


[edit on 10-12-2007 by traderonwallst]


Again proving my point. Be careful how you phrase things, ya lose credibility. 99% of the world's environmental scientists. Just what does this encompass?

Climatologists? Meteorologists? Geologists? Chemists? Biologists? It would take a consensus of all kinds of scientists to get me to believe in something. To me, an environmental scientist would be biased in their interpretation of data. Any study they would do would be geared toward arriving at a predetermined conclusion. That is why the IPCC so heavily relies on them. They even openly practice and admitting to changing data through updates and corrections, as long as the data justifies the end.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimbo999

Originally posted by intrepid

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.


Yep - you 'enviromental apologist' you!!
Apparently, we all live in igloos up here - remember?? heh!

J.


What are you trying to say here?????????????????????????????

I think you need to take a break and collect your thoughts.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 05:50 PM
link   
I think the problem with GW issue is that it became political and as soon that happen like anything that politics touches the substance of the issue take a back page to the agenda of the individuals or groups.

I agree with Blaine that as soon that the U.N. got their hands on the issue, instead of giving it more credibility it just did the opposite. " Oil for food" came to mind.

Also an arguement can be made for developing countries being force or persuaded to sign treaties that could slow their development based on studies or theories that can not be clearly proven, and most importantly is not their fault.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


What month did it hit that 100 degrees intrepid. for a while I thought you were talking about something recent.

Talking about the snow mobile companies, hey, I can go there. I used to regularly trade Polaris Corp when i was working on Wall Street. We used to follow the weather very closely and short it when ever the weather was above normal and get long when winter came early. Guess what......Over the 8 years I worked there, we were net long a lot more than we were short it. So I am not sure why you keep using the snow mobile industry as a barometer for global warming.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Republicans accuse me of being a Democrat. Democrats accuse me of being Republican. This is the same thing in play. This is not fence sitting. It is seeing elements of truth in both sides of an argument. None of your Science Peers could categorically state that Human Beings are a major cause of Global Warming as a Fact. Facts are timeless as is the truth. Facts do not change. Therefore we are still well inside the realm of Theory. It is also relevant that we most likely do contribute to the pollution that probably plays a part in Global Warming. Believing both is not a contradiction. It is just trying to be honest.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 06:04 PM
link   
I was going to comment on this global warming thread earlier, but I am the middle of a major ice storm and had no power for a couple of hours.


I will have to find and read the complete article. It is in a publication that is peer reviewed, so put that notion to rest.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


How recently? What time of the year exactly? Yeah - I hear you about that incredible humidity you guys get...phew....too much for me.

J.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAvenger
I was going to comment on this global warming thread earlier, but I am the middle of a major ice storm and had no power for a couple of hours.


I will have to find and read the complete article. It is in a publication that is peer reviewed, so put that notion to rest.


It's already been soundly debunked I'm afraid. 'Peer reviewed' or not...

J.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 06:07 PM
link   
OK...here's something else that bugs me. Everyone screams that the rising sea levels is dead proof that Global Warming is killing us.

How do we know what the correct sea levels are? Maybe the sea levels are actually supposed to be much higher?

This argument loses all kinds of credibility I think just by looking into the past. We know there are complete towns and ancient civilizations under 20 and 30 feet of water in and around the Mediterranean. Did the ancient Egyptians or Tunisians have SUV's that we did not know about??? I am not trying to be sarcastic or anything, but could someone please explain to me why we know that the sea levels are not too low and are only approaching normal with the current rising levels? To me it seems like sea levels have been rising for centuries.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by traderonwallst
 


I think you need to look up 'sarcasm' maybe...



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 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimbo999

Originally posted by TheAvenger
I was going to comment on this global warming thread earlier, but I am the middle of a major ice storm and had no power for a couple of hours.


I will have to find and read the complete article. It is in a publication that is peer reviewed, so put that notion to rest.


It's already been soundly debunked I'm afraid. 'Peer reviewed' or not...

J.


So says you, the proclaimed Mensa member....Enron, Exxon, Enron, Exxon.

OK, what ever.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by jimbo999
 


Well...are you a member or not?

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 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimbo999


It's already been soundly debunked I'm afraid. 'Peer reviewed' or not...

J.


Oh? I think not. I will read the article and decide for myself if you don't mind.
I possibly know a little more about the subject than most.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by traderonwallst
 


The consensus of scientists has already occured. It's official. That's yesterday's news (or last weeks anyhow..) - time to move on now...

J.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Here is something for everyone too chew on. I've personally been flooded with information as to why Global Warming is real or caused by Human activity. This site appears to have an excellent compilation of the argument the other way.

Mind Candy regarding Global Warming.

[edit on 12/10/2007 by Blaine91555]



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAvenger

Originally posted by jimbo999


It's already been soundly debunked I'm afraid. 'Peer reviewed' or not...

J.


Oh? I think not. I will read the article and decide for myself if you don't mind.
I possibly know a little more about the subject than most.


Go back one page to Bluess post there. You will find the obvious answer there I believe.


J.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join