It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by kix
Grrenland is Called STILL Greenland because 700 hundred years ago it had a lot of less ice than it has today, then a cold wave happened and it had to be abandoned due to long winters and such....
Too bad Al gore was not there to shout that the world was going to end...
BTW the ammount of biomass now is a lot less than lets say 200 years ago due to extinctions and a smaller presence of big animals, so all that CO2 is not being produced right now.... tell that to big Al $$$$.
I have camped in yosemite for almost 15 straight years (well I skipped 1997 because of the flood) but this winter has been in my recollection the one with more snowfall in a very long time, in fact a woman in Oakhurst California (elavation=3100f) had snow falling and she told me it was the 2 time she saw snow falling there in 40 years
Originally posted by Maxmars
reply to post by kix
Now I know that there have been many such photo montages and presented to argue both sides of the case. I still feel that indeed, there is a very real storm brewing in our ecological future - I just can't accept a financial 'snake-oil' solution which requires significant sacrifices by the common folks, while the money masters and industrialists continue the 'statistic and mathematical obfuscation' game at thier expense.
Originally posted by Kinesis
And that, my friend, is what the issue boils down to. I like to use plain English so my point is clear, rather than twisting a sentence around it sounds more technical than it should be.
People will find holes in your argument, no matter how thorough the research, or how compelling your argument. They'll find a hole for the sole purpose of stifling your intend toward awareness, and stall anyone who may be in a position to act upon your message.
Originally posted by Duality
reply to post by Kinesis
Huh? No I'm currently writing submissions for the government to take action on climate change. I think it's a huge issue.
I was commenting on how everyone is treating global warming as some sort of government fabrication, when in reality it was conspriacy theorists like the members of ATS that pushed it in the first place. Now that it's mainstream though, most people on this board can't take it and have suddenly turned against that which they created. It's insanity.
Hence the comment on "Tall Poppy Syndrome". You build something up as big as you can, then suddenly get scared by how big and well known it is, so you freak out and try to cut it back down. That's what I've seen happen on these boards with the global warming issue.
One of the best-kept secrets in the global warming debate is that the plant life of Planet Earth would benefit greatly from a higher level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere.You read that correctly. Flowers, trees, and food crops love carbon dioxide, and the more they get of it, the more they love it. Carbon dioxide is the basic raw material that plants use in photosynthesis to convert solar energy into food, fiber, and other forms of biomass. Voluminous scientific evidence shows that if CO2 were to rise above its current ambient level of 360 parts per million, most plants would grow faster and larger because of more efficient photosynthesis and a reduction in water loss. There would also be many other benefits for plants, among them greater resistance to temperature extremes and other forms of stress, better growth at low light intensities, improved root/top ratios, less injury from air pollutants, and more nutrients in the soil as a result of more extensive nitrogen fixation.
Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
Furthermore, it has NOT been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that "Global Warming" is more than a small spike in a less certain long-term graph.
Lets be honest here, you're not looking for truth, you're just pushing an alternative opinion at any cost
Nah, they watched a movie on YouTube so they know better than you
You present no references to support this theory, you merely state it as if it is a fact.
We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
This petition has been signed by over 19,000 American scientists.
nothing will be accepted by a mind in denial.
it's accepted in the mainstream media