Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Are we to blame for climate change?

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 02:02 PM
link   
I personally find the whole climate change debate confusing due to a mixture of half-truths, conflicting data and the lack of actual solid debate.

I think ATS Mix could be the ideal format for two individuals from both sides of the argument to each present their cases (with counter arguments) so we can make an informed decision about what is actually going on.

Thats about it.




posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 02:28 PM
link   
We could be partly to blame, or to put it another, we could be relevant in the final equation, if not decisive. But it is NOT CO2 emissions related, that is just a tax scam the elites are trying to pull to further reduce our collective standard of life.

If we are responsible it is because of deflorestation (which is mostly corporate, talk to any brazilian) and urbanism (which I consider a micro desertification, our cities take up too much space and have too little plant life, which makes them hotter and dryer than if it were a natural environment).

Besides climate change we are of course responsible for pollution and species extinction, but that's a somewhat seperate problem.

But one conclusion I do have: corporations are more responsible than individuals, and corporations are elitist organisations in both function, design and loyalty. So it is time for elitists themselves to be held responsible for what they are knowingly doing to this planet, not just middle class or the poor. The middle class does not know better and the poor often does not have a choice, but elitist led corporate enviromental destruction is unexcusable.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Climate change.... No.

Creating an unbalance in mother nature yes.

Good old mother earth can fix any problem thrown at her..... and in my opinion her future doesn't include us humans.(or very few of us anyway)
We are raping her to the point where she is going to have to correct herself, and I believe that the solution will carry the side effect of erradicating a good portion of the human population.

Look at the extremes in the weather, quakes and volcanos. Sure we might be at the end\beginning of a new cycle but I think karma is going to give it to us hard.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 02:45 PM
link   
You could be right, but we are in a phase change fractal cycle atm, so we could still pull off a 180º and go green. The key is energy, if we manage to break the tecnoblockade and get out all that nice tech the oil industry, the military complex and our governmental (with emphasis on mental) systems has kept from us by burying it in patent offices and atributing absurd private property rights, we could in less than a decade change our total impact on this planet and get out of the false scarcity economy.

I believe we live in a world of infinite energy, only our forced ignorance is keeping us from a new era of prosperity and environmental harmony.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Very sound theory that I agree with, but it will do us no good if we don't start living off of a balance between the resources and people. Our population is growing exponentially and many places are using more resources(water for example) than it could sustain. Instead of puting on population limits that would god forbit not give growth in this area, they pull resources remotely to sustain its increased capacity. Now we have farms that needed irrigation that are loosing water supplies to industries and over populated centers. Our water tables our dropping or are being polluted to the point where we are slowly poisoning ourselves. A balance needs to be found and people need to wake up to the current situation and the future we are destroying for our children.

I'm sure you have heard the analogy of put a frog into a boiling pot of water and they'll hop out, but put a frog into a cold pot of water and slowly bring it to a boil and it will just sit there. Well the pot is boiling and jumping out isn't an option.

So... Frog soup anyone?



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Short answer is a resounding no.
It's subjects like this that make me wish I knew how to do links and cut and paste.
I learned a long time ago that if you really want to find out what is behind a movement, follow the money. I can direct you to a web-site that has arguments from both sides but don't know if can put it here. If you U2U I will give you the address.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 04:55 PM
link   
I don't believe the overpopulation meme. This planet could probably sustain 20 billion or more of us, with an ecological society and good organisation. If we had clean and cheap energy ofc. The reason we are failing with less than 7 billion is terrible leadership and terrible technological choices as well as a pyramid shaped social structure that only really caters economically to the people at the top. If things were less centralised, if information were free, if we had the sensible people selected for positions of authority and influence we could do far better.

Even as bad as things are now our population growth will probably flatline at around 9 billion and start slowly declining from there. And you're right about Earth being able to take what we throw at her, life would survive any man made catastrophe and probably be back to full bloom in less than 100 000 years. So we should worry more about getting our act together than treating the planet as a rape victim with considerable negligence to the people of this planet.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Great Idea, UK. I think a sort of debate on the ATS Mix on this subject could be very effective.

I also subscribe to the theory that the human race is at least contributing a little to climate change, but I could definitely be persuaded otherwise.
That a climate change is happening, however, is most certainly apparent. Whether we are the cause or not, we should be doing all we can, especially in the field of science, to stop or reverse this effect.


Originally posted by Zepherian
..., life would survive any man made catastrophe and probably be back to full bloom in less than 100 000 years.


While it is probably be true that the Earth will spring back up, will our civilization do the same without irreversible damage to its culture and heritage?
Maybe this has happened before...



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Well, we could blame ourselves, sure.

But that would leave us wondering where the Governments of the world stand in all this, and whether or not they are using their powers to their full effect in dealing with the problem.

I don't think they are, by the way.

We can blame ourselves for not taking more action, but we really should be blaming the Government for it's incompetence.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Zepherian
 


If we had clean and cheap energy? Well, that isnt an argument. I could easily say that;

"If we had magic, we could transform into birds and fly away into the sky, I dont believe in being bound to the human physical form."

When you bring in magic, and assume things not in evidence, anything is possible isnt it?

It is trying to find workable solutions within the actual parameters that things become a bit more tricky. We have the energy we have, we have the technology we currently have, we have the social structure we have, and given those things, we have too many people for all of them to live on the Earth without being hungry, starving and fighting constantly.

Could there be some magical development that will change that? Of course. Is that the case now? No. It isnt.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 12:46 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


I think this is a great idea too. I'm a bit of a climate skeptic, I'd like to hear more from each side before I put my pennies in.



As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Some of the most compelling evidence for humans impacting the climate come from the Votok ice cores.




If you follow the link, you will see another graph that shows the correlation between the temperature, and CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

www.daviesand.com...

You will see, that there IS a natural cycle in play, that has nothing to do with man.

You will also see that at the very end of the graph, all of a sudden the CO2 jumps above and beyond any previously known levels.

IF the cause of the temperature increase is the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, (there is always the possibility that both temperature and CO2 may increases be symptoms of a third unknown causal agent);

THEN human caused massive increases in the atmospheric CO2 may be about to cause a swing that could be much wilder than the cores have ever recorded. We are already seeing a rapid warming, so, science to date, working with the best data we have, sees no reason to assume at this point the trend will not continue.

Why is it presumed to be human caused? The CO2 increases that are far beyond and historically recorded levels just happen to coincide with our human activity, and our increased number and rising technology and fuel consumption. Which we know creates CO2.

Is there a possibility it will not happen? Of course, we cannot EVER be certain we understand all the hidden variables. This is true in ALL science, including the science you use every day and never question the validity of.

So far, we have no contradictory evidence to disprove the link, and until we do, it is should be taken very seriously. Of course we should keep looking, but we have no compelling reason at this point to make us believe that the trend will not hold.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 03:11 AM
link   
I love nature and am all for protecting our natural resources but global warming is a different animal. I'm not on the Al Gore bandwagon. Nope, don't convict me of heresy just yet. Think about this.

Quote from encyclopedia
"The last glacial period is sometimes colloquially referred to as the "last ice age", though this use is incorrect because an ice age is a longer period of cold temperature in which ice sheets cover large parts of the Earth. Glacials, on the other hand, refer to colder phases within an ice age that separate interglacials. Thus, the end of the last glacial period is not the end of the last ice age. The end of the last glacial period was about 12,500 years ago, while the end of the last ice age may not yet have come: little evidence points to a stop of the glacial-interglacial cycle of the last million years."

Going to factual geological data, it has obviously been much colder on earth. For example, the last glacial cycle. It has been much warmer before as well. The temperature of the earth changes in cycles to extreme degrees. It is probable that we have contributed to the rate of the recent temperature increase to a small degree, (That increase that has been going on since the end of the glacial period. ) but that is what it has been, contribution. The actual Global warming we are experiencing started 18000 years ago.

What I disagree with is the idea that we can slow the increase or this insanity that we can even stop it or reverse it.
The green movement plans on spending literally trillions of dollars to "Stop Global Warming" which is actually not possible.
It makes much more sense spending the trillions of dollars getting ready for what is already happening than to throw it away by trying to stop the world from continuing a cycle that it has been in for tens of thousands of years.
Global warming is real. The inhabitants of the last ice age could have told us that. This major disaster-hate ourselves for being evil-pay indulgences to the carbon priests-BS that we are dealing with now will not help. It merely lines the pockets of the fear mongers. The carbon that is injected into our atmosphere every year by volcanoes exceeds what we put in with industry. Another interesting fact. Mars has gotten warmer in proportion to the warming of the earth. I assume we haven't got major industry there yet. Anything in common? Big glowing ball in the sky?
Should we just do what we want and pollute to our hearts content? No. Of course not, but we can be reasonable. We cannot stop the cycle. We can try to slow our contribution to it but what lengths should we go to? Remember those pesky volcanoes and that big ole glowing ball in the sky? It will happen anyway. Just not quite as fast if we're lucky. Just as fast if we're not. In reality we'd be trying to put out a housefire with a squirt gun. We'd go broke trying to stop warming while we should be getting ready for it.
The media has done a good sales job.
It is very fashionable to go 'green' even though green nowadays takes more money and petroleum industry based product than ever to qualify as green. It is about HUGE PROFIT. Try this. Stand back and take a real look at who has what to gain from green. You might want to start with GE, for example, and the lobbies that it runs. Green is very profitable these days.
Politicians and big business stand to get filthy stinking rich with Global Warming Solution but they won't be able to stop it. They already know that though. They still want that cash though. Those taxes, tarrifs, carbon fees, Church of Nature indulgences.... you will pay.
Why not use the money to clean up coastal pollution and waste sites before the changes happen. Establish better ways to live and survive with the coming changes. Get real energy alternatives into action like nuclear. (stop grinding your teeth, I can hear you it's much better nowadays, read up on it)
Use the time to make positive steps in agriculture that benefit the earth and not the big agriculture fat cats wallets. Do good things for small farmers that can sustain healthy agriculture without billions of tons of chemicals each year. Use more efficient methods to accomplish our goals without profit based waste. Get real mass transit for cities like Houston Texas for gods sake! (tiny toy train-9 $figures-useless- another story).

We don't need to make Al Gore and his buddies rich going green. We need to make sense, but we won't. It is all about the money and the game.
Mother Nature never asked for a percentage or stock options.
If you want to make positive change, prepare for the future.
If you want to waste trillions building a pantheonic cult under the guise of stopping the earth from doing what it was already up to in the first place, well....go green.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 03:35 AM
link   
If you check the whole solar system is heating up, it's because of the gravational changes that are being caused by the alignment of 12/21/2012.
This why the Mayan calander ends it won't work any longer, the celestial bodys will be different after 12/21/2012 when we cross back over the milky way and are on the other side, need new calander new gear. Wewill align with center of mily way 12/21/2012 the planets are going into closer orbit to sun because of gravity effect and in turn gaining energy get warmer. It does not matter what we did it's natural cycle, 3000 scientist say same thing, if need links can get them. We are being lied to about this also.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 04:33 AM
link   
What global warming. this is part of a normal 100,000 year warming cycle
and is normal not man caused.

its all a hoax by the treehuggers they knew that we were starting the next cycle and they are using the fact that few people understand its a normal cycle to hoax the public.
its a natural phenomenon that has been happening for millions of years.
anthropology.si.edu...
anthropology.si.edu...
anthropology.si.edu...
anthropology.si.edu...
anthropology.si.edu...

This is what is normal
What we have been in for the last 3 million years is a ice age and it may or may not be ending.

What the treehuggers have been doing is to fake the data to make it look like the world has been warming.
www.climateaudit.org...
I don't expect anyone to really read this climate audit web site before posting it is bogus and if they read the whole site it would take a least two days
I expect to have posters posting that the evidence on this climateaudit site is bogus within 6 hour or less because they did not read it but because they have been so brainwashed by the treehuggers that the refuse to read it before posting a reply here.

www.globalwarmingart.com...
this chart gives the global climate for the last 65 million years.
but i don't believe the global warmers will understand it
that is what the treehuggers count on is 95% of the population has no understanding of science.

in other words the treehuggers know YOUR to stupid to understand and they are using this to manipulate you.
www.globalwarmingart.com...


here is another chart of the last 5 million years.
upload.wikimedia.org...

on the Equivalent Vostok (°C) scale on the right hand side the 0 is the iceage line below that is ice-age temperatures and the bottom is the time scale and 0 is now.

this chart shows that we have been in a ice-age for 3 million years.
the swings up and down are the cycles the world has been experiencing for the last 5 million years.

as you can see these swings have been increasing in severity. these are glacial and interglacial periods

by the way these charts came from a pro-global warming site that thinks no one has the brains to read there charts.

in the last 1/2 million years we have had 5 of these global warming episodes.
the treehuggers know this but since it has not happened in "recorded history" they just forget to tell us about it.

don't take anyone word for global warming
i don't and i have had too many Palaeontology coruses and dug to many Paleocene, Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene bone sites.
because of may mining experience i have been invited to these digs as a safety man.

few Palaeontologist or geologist that are not treehuggers believe in global warming. we have studied the history of the earth.


reply to Illusionsaregrander

Some of the most compelling evidence for humans impacting the climate come from the Votok ice cores.


first they are the "Vostok", ice cores from Antarctica not "Votok"
makes it hard for the dumb people here to check your data if you feed them bad names.

taking short term ice-age date (in earths history)and trying to claim that it represents
something is misleading at best. and looks like a attempt to pull a hoax when you look at the data for the last 65 million years

or do you believe earth has alway been in a ice-age

upload.wikimedia.org...
how do you explain this chart i got from a pro global warming site
that was made from data from those same cores.

the lack of evidence is not evidence for for or against

explain why the votok ice cores show human impact.
these ice cores only go back at the most 420,000 years in ice age of 3,000,000 years. before that there was no ice for them to take cores from.
because there was no ice. and had not been for over 100 million years

lets try seabed sediments that go back 100 million years and you will see that this global warming is not real.
before the last 3 million years there had not been a ice age for about 100 million years.
this is the first ice age since age of the dinosaurs.
you are obscuring the facts by claiming the the iceage we are in is all of history.
before we went into this ice-age the temperatures of the earth were what the global warmer call global warm. about 10 degrees warmer then now.

I can claim that the ice-age was caused by mans ancestors


The Pliocene is the fifth epoch of the Cenozoic. The epoch started around five million years ago and lasted almost three and a half million years. It is during the Pliocene that the first bipedal ancestors of humans are known to have evolved. Dramatic cooling and a drop in sea level impacted both marine and terrestrial life at the start of the epoch.


Since the first bipedal ancestors of humans showed up the earth has undergone "Dramatic cooling and a drop in sea level"
By that it was the bipedal ancestors of humans that caused the iceage we are in.
anthropology.si.edu...





[edit on 17-11-2008 by ANNED]



posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 08:44 AM
link   
Illusionsaregrander: You're wrong. We have the energy the sun hits us with, we have geothermal. We have electrolised water as hydrogen and oxygen, we have a whole lot of stuff. We have wind. We have waves. We have sensible biofuels, not just corn based. We have enough landmass, even without cutting down the forrests and leveling the mountains.

What we don't have is sane, rational, choices. Because we are being lead by sociopathic pennycounting morons. Because we are being turned into sociopathic suicidal pennycounting morons.



posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 09:03 AM
link   
Im up for this, but will have to work out how to do the Mix thing,

Anyone want to debate against me, I propose and will show overwhelming evidese that to believe we can add the pollutions to our environment and NOT affect even if only a in small way the Climate is very very naive!

Will get a mike sorted tonight/tommorrow,

anyone for its all natural and will Mix it up?

U2u me

Elf



posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by MischeviousElf

I have no idea how to do the mix thingy either, and I'm afraid I don't have a mic at the moment. If we can figure out how, and I can lay my hands on the equipment, I will be more than happy to debate you or anyone else on the silliness that is AGW.

I cannot debate you on the side that we have absolutely no effect on our environment, however, since that would be unscientific to say the least. I can pour a bottle of water in the ocean and change sea level, it just doesn't change sea level enough to matter. As with CO2 levels, we do not make that much of a difference. But when you throw in other chemicals, perhaps those do have a serious effect on the environment.

In other words, we would have to agree on a platform for each side. 'We have no effect' just doesn't work for me.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 09:54 AM
link   
LOL... used to be called "Global Warming" but now there is a shift to "climate change" so that this theory can be utilized no matter what the outcome.

Anyway, here is the deal...
man made carbon may or may not be impacting us but as already stated, there is no irrefutable proof.

The whole "religion" is controlled by what? Wait for it..... Money & power.

The entire carbon credit scam is nothing more than empowering more "paper traders" to get rich buying and selling carbon credits. They in turn fund the politicians. The "corrupt" rich get richer and the "people" get stuck with the bill. This is another cover for stealing more taxpayer money and lining the pockets of the "corrupt" elite. Also, look at the power they acquire... to tell everyone what they can and cannot do under the guise of "heresy".. oops I mean environmental impact.

This is the biggest cash cow since the military industrial complex and actually is a much bigger power grab. (Look at all the bribes it will take to get anything done!)

The UN also loves this since they lost the battles of taxing international travel (and many others) and now have a way to increase their corrupt influence into the mix.

Hey, I would love to have a car that utilized electrolysis to burn water but I do not see that happening. Please remember the motivation here. Once they pass these laws, they will never go away… climate change will never go away. There will be to much money in it.

First, buying and selling carbon credits doesn't remove one molecule of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Second, carbon credits weren't designed to lower emissions. They were designed to shift emissions around. Practically speaking, they will delay the day when we start lowering them.

Their present purpose is simply to permit developed countries and their industries to keep emitting carbon, so long as they pay a huge financial price for it by subsidizing the developing world. (So, our prices and taxes go up to make other people rich... joy)

Meaning, so long as we pay that price in higher energy costs.

In theory, it's the "cap" on emissions that's supposed to lower them -- both Kyoto's global cap and the caps developed nations set in operating "cap-and-trade" carbon markets. (But reality is no lower CO2 as the cost for the "credits" is just paid by us and the credit traders make a fortune... just like oil futures a few months ago but this has a more "concentrated" circle of profit.)

I want to say this is just a tax but it really isn't as it is more of a corporate "paper trader" windfall profit that we pay for that does nothing but make these elite rich at our expense for actually doing nothing to cut CO2. So we pay to enrich someone else for no purpose at all.



posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Mmm I have a thought I posted a challenge in the debate forum for a debate as such, a member did u2u me but has not got back any further when I replied,

I would be honored to cross keyboards with yourself in a judged contest if you like.

Have a look here, However I am sure the GW and Climate change issue has been covered before and I wanted to bring something new to ATS, so have a peek u2u me with ideas as such we can go from there, I will have to set the date of start at least one week in Advance as it requires full daily commitment...

On this Topic of the post Redneck and myself have some very interesting information in the following thread, (redneck will try and reply later tonight just popped into ats quick now for 5 mins) From apposing sides, however I have to say the breadth and type of research I provide is very very convincing on GW being affected by man, and why we are not seeing it yet in the Atmosphere as such, as some predictions:

Tibetan Glaciers Melting at an Astonishing Rate


Redneck take a gander:Public fight Club - Debate

Kind Regards,

Elf

[edit on 28-11-2008 by MischeviousElf]






top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join