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: 9
31
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 06:57 PM
link   
The truth about global warming is that although it may be accelerated by man but it is not man's fault or caused solely by emissions. The sun spots are going through their typical cyclic flare-ups. Earth is not the only planet that is heating. Mars, Triton (a moon of Neptune), Venus, etc., are all showing increased heat and surface warming. Technically we are still in an "ice age" due to the ice caps on the poles. It is completely natural that the ice caps are melting and that our planet is warming while it is in the process of coming out of an ice age.




posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by jimbo999
 


I asked you earlier. Does your consensus include meteorologists? climatologists? geologists? chemists? physicists?

Or is just your plain old environmental, already biased scientists?



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Although Im sure burning gas in our cars isnt ideal for the enviroment- dont you think that we would have suffered from some kind of CO2 emissions sickness from all the "polution" that caused global warming?

It all seems unrealistic to me. Our demise and downfall is going to come from us going to war or nukes, not you driving your cars everyday.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


Ok - right you are
Good point.

J.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 07:01 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 have a funny feeling that you are right. Perhaps it really is "peak oil" and they are using global warming as an excuse to build alternatives before the public finds out. If the public thought oil was going to run out any time in the next decade, panic would rear it's ugly head and gas would end up at $10-15 a gallon or higher.

I am opposed to petroleum based energy more out of health concerns than any fear of global warming. If anything I am more inclined to believe the theory that they are using HAARP to melt the glacial ice for drinking water they will be able to sell for big profits in the face of continuing water shortages.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by traderonwallst
 


Why not do the research for yourself? It's freely available - and was very well publicised barely a week ago or so... I don't rely on purely US (or even Canadian) media for all my information. To do so I think, is to limit your resources in a very debilitating way
Good hunting. Really, I mean that. It's well worth the effort.

J.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by disgustedbyhumanity
 


But then why would the oil billionaires who run anti global warming, psuedo-science websites like the CATO Institute spend so much time, energy & money trying to convince you that GW is NOT real? It's just not logical surely?



J.



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

I think if you go back and read the whole thread, you'll find we've already discussed this option



J.


[edit on 10-12-2007 by jimbo999]



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
[



Nice to see avenger has shown his face - howdy, cowboy! - if you want the article, U2U me - I have it already. It's funny to see ToWSt criticising climatologists for reanalysising data, that's what this Singer study is, LOLocopter...



Hello Melatonin. I hope you're well and life is being kind to you. Some of the posts here remind why I retired from debating this nonsense.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimbo999
reply to post by AshleyD
 

I think if you go back and read the whole thread, you'll find we've already discussed this option


You probably have. But you see, my problem is inherent laziness.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD

Originally posted by jimbo999
reply to post by AshleyD
 

I think if you go back and read the whole thread, you'll find we've already discussed this option


You probably have. But you see, my problem is inherent laziness.


Heheh...I understand completely
Unfortunately, (??) I've been here since the ragged inception of this tawdry little thread...heh!

J.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Source of quote below. Sorry - the source is from Richard S. Lindzen of the Cato Institute.




Actually Richard Lindzen is a professor with M.I.T. and has published dozens of peer reviewed papers. He is the leading opponent of the warmies; the man who makes the most sense of climate change and is who they fear the most.

I am impressed with your unbiased and honest approach to the subject in this thread. Very refreshing, thank you.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAvenger
Hello Melatonin. I hope you're well and life is being kind to you. Some of the posts here remind why I retired from debating this nonsense.


Hopefully not mine...



Heh, as I said if you want the paper, just ask. I'm sure you'll find it's not exactly a ground breaking study that 'explodes human-global warming'.

If correct (heh), it would just return us to a position pre-2005 where we appear to have a discrepency between models and observations for tropical troposphere. But, conclusion 2 in their discussion appears to be incorrect - at an error of .1'C (which is the difference between RSS and UAH and they use as 'structural uncertainty'), RSS is consistent with the models, they suggest not.

That is:

RSS (T2lt) = .144 +/- .1; models = .214 +/- .04

RSS (T2) = .133 +/- .1; models = .228 +/- .05

Using the magic of mathematics, they are within the range of each other, no?




[edit on 10-12-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 07:59 PM
link   
No, your posts are reasoned out at least. A bit too "Real Climate", but sensible.
I will U2U an email address for this article, and thank you for it.

edit: Thanks for the paper. I have forwarded it to my work email so I can look at it tomorrow. I was off work today because of the storm, and feel lazy. For the rest of tonight I'm going to drink rum, read ATS UFO posts and punt Australian gallops races.





[edit on 12/10/2007 by TheAvenger]



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by jimbo999
 


I will continue to consider both sides of the debate and the fact that many of those on the other side appear to be qualified to express an opinion. I'll continue with the knowledge that Theory is simply unproven fact. I'll take comfort in the fact that I think both sides have things of relevance to say and that ignoring one side completely in favor of another amounts to Tunnel Vision which could be considered Scientific Heresy. If Mankind is the Primary cause of Global Warming and if Global Warming is indeed even unusual in the history of the Earth the truth will play out in the end. While I'm doing this I'll factor in the equally convinced Scientific Community who said we were in the beginning of an impending Ice Age not so many years ago.

I've enjoyed the thread and the ensuing debate. I've got to get some more work done to pay the bills. Thanks to everyone for the discussion it has been very informative.

In parting let us not forget the Pew Foundation. A source of funding for the pro-Global Warming stance. Funded by Oil and Tobacco money. It would seem both sides have to turn to Oil Money for needed funds. In fact in reading about it I was floored by the irony of it all.

Jimbo, a few short decades ago, these Scientists you so revere, would have laughed at the idea of impending Global Warming. Who knows what the consensus will be a few decades forward. Either way lets agree we all want a clean environment and work from that premise instead of arguing over who is right. What does it matter which side is right if both sides are working toward a better world? The argument pales in comparison to what working together for a better world would accomplish. Not everything is a Conspiracy. Not everyone is a Conspirator. Unless of course the observer is suffering from Paranoid Delusions.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by TheAvenger
 


You are most welcome. I wish I could continue longer but work calls. Thanks for the encouragement.




posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimbo999


My consensus? Can you elucidate? Or do you mean the 'scientific consensus'?

Well, I'd say it's more honest that what you are saying. I'm simply stating the painful truth. If some people don't like that - well, that's tough. Doesn't really change anything though.

J.


Yes, please explain what makes up your so called "scientific consensus", does it contain climatologists? meteorologists? Geologists? Biologists??

Or is it made up of environmentalists and Scientologists?

By the way.......If some people don't like it......well, thats tough is not an quality response from a so-called Mensa member.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAvenger
edit: Thanks for the paper. I have forwarded it to my work email so I can look at it tomorrow. I was off work today because of the storm, and feel lazy. For the rest of tonight I'm going to drink rum, read ATS UFO posts and punt Australian gallops races.


No problem at all. Much respect for actually asking, it appears most just want to use the media vision of the science (eeek!).

Enjoy the rum, making me jealous now, heh.

ABE: and just for people on the 'consensus' issue, the best way to see the consensus is in the scientific literature. Anything else is opinion. But if you want to assess a consensus of people in science, I think people who research climate change might be the best people - so, climatologists and closely associated areas.

I wouldn't ask a urologist for a detailed assessment of a heart condition. And the same applies on this issue. Scientists tend to specialise fairly early in their careers, although some do move around a bit.

[edit on 10-12-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid


That's all you have? Your pipe dream is deflated and you resort to insults? :shk:


Seriously, has any of his responses sounded Mensa caliber? He has resorted to members making his point and then he says.......yeah, go back 2 posts and read what this guy said. And now your defending him.

I am not resorting to name calling, but I am calling into question his claim to being a Mensa member. OK? There I said it....



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 08:27 PM
link   
I hope this doesn't get laughed out of this very interesting thread, especially seeing that most here are intellectual and hold a good argument, but has anyone considered the spiritual causes of earth's changes?

Many times over God warned the Israelites that if they obeyed His commandments, their crops would reap abundant harvests. Likewise, if they didn't obey their crops would fail - so on and so forth in many aspects of their lives.

By obeying God, the seasons, which effect crop growth, live stock production and the many other area's of survival were "controlled" by blessings through obedience to God's commandments.

Personally I wouldn't totally rule out our current climate issues being directly connected to mankind's lack of obedience to God's commandments.
Most will probably laugh at such thoughts, especially those who consider science a more reasonable way to find the meaning of knowledge, wisdom and mysteries.

To totally rule out a spiritual factor, to me at least, is not looking at ALL aspects of the argument.
I think mankind and his connection (or lack thereof) with his Creator "could" be a very large factor as to why we face the current climate issues we face today.

"IF" God our creator is real, and our actions have a direct result to our surroundings, in the physical sense and in the spiritual sense, with both being directly linked. Then a quick "look around" at the current state of Godlessness throughout mankind "could" be the missing link as to why we are experiencing these things, not just here on earth, but right across the solar system.

God in times past has used the "weather" to convey a message to mankind. The Great Flood as a prime example.

In the Book of Revelations - the last book of the Bible, there is much information about the "end days" of mankind. What I find interesting is the detailed information about the earths climate and the changes the earth will suffer as a direct result of God's judgment apon mankind's wickedness and rebellion.
Its speaks of famine - famine can be the direct result of weather. No rain, or storms has a great effect on our food sources. Both of which we see today.
Climate scientists already agree "Global Warming" is having a direct effect on our food supplies.

Here in Australia we are seeing this first hand, as the drought we are currently in (the worst in our nations history) has caused food prices to rise dramatically.

Anyway its something to consider as to why the earth is experiencing these events.
This is not intended as a religious "Bible bashing" piece, but another avenue of discussion that has not been mentioned previously.

Cheers.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join