It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Post Your nPerspective on Global Warming

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 11:22 AM
In the short time that I have been here on ATS I have participated in several Global Warming Threads. In this time not only have I been forced to look at the issue out side of the confines of my box, I have also been forced to really think through my personal belief and as a result my understanding of the topic and my personal beliefs have become much richer. Thanks to you all.

My intention for starting this thread is slightly outside of the norm, I DO NOT want to begin another debate. I want to create a thread on the topic of GW that allows every interested ATS member to post THEIR GW ideology without worrying about flames or derailments. In each of the GW threads I have participated in the topics always get off track due to the passion and knowledge of the ATS users. I am really interested in hearing everybody’s personal beliefs.

This thread then is for you to post what you believe and why you believe it. Preferably when you post it is not a shot from the hip but a well thought out, well constructed argument in support of your position. Complete with references, links, images, etc. Rather than beginning another thread where we engage in the back and forth debates on the issue that gets us nowhere, I thought it would be nice to have a chance to tell others how you see it, and have a chance to read how others see it.

My hope is that in the creation of this thread we can build a vast trove of information that collectively can be used by members to form their own ideas and impressions. It is not that I don’t want to debate the issue anymore; it is simply that I have become slightly confused as to where people I see regularly are coming from. So to conclude this introduction, Please contribute your view on GW. Please refrain from challenging others

TO BEGIN: My Global Warming Beliefs

My personal view on Global Warming (GW) is twofold. First I do believe that the global climate naturally has variations. There is plenty of evidence that there exists, naturally, a cycle of warming and cooling. Second, I also full heartedly believe that human systems are capable of affecting planetary systems, and in the case of GW, I do believe that our contribution of ‘green house’ gasses, our alteration of the physical composition of the Earth, and other actions directly impact the natural climate cycle of this planet. I make no claims about scope of the impacts we will have on the Earth if we do not begin to mediate and eventually eliminate such impacts, but I do believe that it will make things incredibly difficult for human systems as they are composed today, not to mention that myriad of natural planetary systems, (flora, fauna, cycles, etc).

Documents that I have read that have left me with this opinion are many and diverse.

One of my favorites was published the magazine Science in 2004, its title is “Beyond the Ivory Tower’.

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.”

While documents such at this one above and the various studies it looked into seek to prove anthropogenic global warming there is also ample evidence that Solar Forcing, Oceanic Volcanoes, the depletion and alteration of the Earth’s physical structures all also play a roll in the warming of the planet.
In no way am I interested in disputing the reality of natural cycles. What I am interested in is working towards mediating the impacts human systems have on natural systems. Ignoring how we affect our planet is dangerous. The number of humans alive today is staggering (6 Billion). Considering the number of humans alive, the resources they consume, and the wastes they produce can not be ignored.
Because we are COMPLETELY dependant on the Earth for our survival it only makes sense that we would invest our intelligence and ingenuity to ensure that our actions do not harm the dynamic, interdependent systems of this planet.
I have no doubt that humans contribute to the alteration of planetary cycles. Although there is a natural cycle of warming and cooling on the planet, the scale of the human world can easily influence such cycles.

This is my point of view, I look forward to reading others.

Edit: Wow, I spent a bunch of time editing typos out of my post, and look at the title (hangs head in shame). Is there a mod that can remove the offending 'n' for me?

[edit on 26-12-2007 by Animal]

posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 11:59 AM
Thanks for the forum Animal, this should be interesting.

Man-Made Global Warming is a hoax. It is a scare tactic used by enviromentalist to further their agenda.

I have done alot of my own research and have run across this site, which I think is the definative source for Global Warming debunkation.

"People seem to have accepted the view that they should feel guilty about man's impositions on nature, about progress and technological improvement," says Steve Hayward of the Pacific Research Centre. "Even science today is somewhat suspect in the public mind. I think this is a result of the pervasive environmental philosophy that there's a distinction between man and nature, and that what man does is bad and what nature does is good."

Gregg Easterbrook, author of A Moment on the Earth, a critique of environmental thinking, agrees. He argues that the idealisation of nature common in the environmental movement is a modern luxury that has, paradoxically, been made possible by development. "Most of our ancestors spent their lives struggling to grow food, to protect themselves against disease and the elements," he says. "They found nature did not know best. Nature was a hostile force for them."

Environmentalist thinking is now widely accepted in the West. However, many scientists argue that what the Greens say about global warming and pollution is wrong. Professor Wilfred Beckerman, a former member of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, was himself an enthusiastic environmentalist until he started examining the facts. He told Against Nature: "Within a few months of looking at the statistical data, I realised that most of my concerns about the environment were based on false information and scare stories."

Even in recent times, the temperature has not behaved as it should according to global warming theory. Over the last eight years, temperature in the southern hemisphere has actually been falling. Moreover, says Piers Corbyn, "When proper satellite measurements are done of world temperatures, they do not show any increase whatsoever over the last 20 years."

But Greens refuse to accept they have could have been proved wrong. Now they say global warming can involve temperature going both up and down.

Scientists also point out that nature produces far more greenhouse gases than we do. For example, when the Mount Pinatubo volcano erupted, within just a few hours it had thrown into the atmosphere 30 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide— almost twice as much as all the factories, power plants and cars in the United States do in a whole year. Oceans emit 90 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, every year. Decaying plants throw up another 90 billion tonnes, compared to just six billion tonnes a year from humans.

What's more, 100 million years ago, there was six times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as there is now, yet the temperature then was marginally cooler than it is today. Many scientists have concluded that carbon dioxide doesn't even affect climate.

Although many environmentalists have been forced to accept much of the scientific evidence against global warming, they still argue that it is better to be safe than sorry. So they continue to use global warming as a reason to oppose industrialisation and economic growth.

"Lake Erie 30 years ago was virtually dead," adds Steve Hayward. "Today you can fish in it, you can swim in it. The statistics on the amount of pollution in the food chain have shown dramatic improvement in the last 30 years."

This is just a couple of examples...take the time to check out the whole article, then make an informed decision.

[edit on 26-12-2007 by RRconservative]

posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 06:35 PM
this topic doesn't interest me much--so i will casually read things here and there-----so from that point of view, when i think about it::::
i'm not sure either way---i've seen good points on both sides

it;s like eggs----one day there great for you---then 2 weeks later they're bad for you-----what is it---make up your mind

i think this debate will go on for a while--

but like who was is it, huckabee, it think----what if it is and we do nothing. is striving for a better environment that bad???? but i guess striving is fine----but do we need to go defcon 5 on this because it is us doing it???
thats a different argument as well

so, i'm still not sure, but i've bought all new light bulbs anyway---at least they last longer and are supposedly cheaper----i'm still gonna recycle

i wouldn't mind having solar panels or a wind turbine---just to spite the electric co. and not pay them a penny

however i'm not gonna stay home, or not enjoy myself to save the planet,,i'm not biking a quarter mile instead of driving there to save ..

now 10 bucks a gallon--i might start considering it

i saw that N. and S. dakota has alone have enuff wind to power half the country's electric use---well, what the hell are we waiting for----

oh yeah, till oil co.'s are done raping us for all it's worth

so there's my 2 cents--but again, my view is limited and worthless so......

new topics

log in