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.

 

Climate Change/ Global Warming - The Debate Is Over

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 07:08 PM
link   
This thread has brought up a question in my mind, and let me say that I am not being facetious or sarcastic, it's a serious question.

I am constantly reminded that here in America we are something like the top 10% of the world as regards our standard of living. Many countries are not yet industrialized except for some of their larger cities. I see TV shows about people living in huts with no electricity, farmers still doing things with oxen or other animals, people whose primary forms of transportation are bicycles and/or animals, or their own two feet, even pictures on the internet of 'uncontacted tribles' living very primitively.

So my question is, how much global impact are the 'modern' nations having? What percentage of the world's land mass (or total mass, not sure if the oceans should figure in but maybe they should) contains modern industrialized populations giving off pollution and CO2? On a global scale, how much of the Earth is really affected (afflicted?)? And shouldn't mostly unpopulated land masses like the Arctic and Antarctic figure in too?




posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heike
This thread has brought up a question in my mind, and let me say that I am not being facetious or sarcastic, it's a serious question.

I am constantly reminded that here in America we are something like the top 10% of the world as regards our standard of living. Many countries are not yet industrialized except for some of their larger cities. I see TV shows about people living in huts with no electricity, farmers still doing things with oxen or other animals, people whose primary forms of transportation are bicycles and/or animals, or their own two feet, even pictures on the internet of 'uncontacted tribles' living very primitively.

So my question is, how much global impact are the 'modern' nations having? What percentage of the world's land mass (or total mass, not sure if the oceans should figure in but maybe they should) contains modern industrialized populations giving off pollution and CO2? On a global scale, how much of the Earth is really affected (afflicted?)? And shouldn't mostly unpopulated land masses like the Arctic and Antarctic figure in too?




You bring up a good point. In terms of CO2 production, there are no serious effects we are having. In fact any increase in CO2 will encourage plant growth (photosynthesis), so that can only be good for places like Africa.

Pollution is more a local thing. Pollution is big companies that have no accountability doing whatever they want. eg. dumping of toxic waste, that island of rubbish in the pacific, careless oil companies like exxon who spill oil and don't clean it up, Monsanto and their GM crops, etc. That's what they need to fix. These multinationals are lawless and the people at the top need to be fully prosecuted for their crimes. The Rockefeller family immediately comes to mind when I think of these.

I am all for the development of green technologies, however this should not prevent the industrialization of third world countries to prevent some so-called catastrophe that will never materialize. It is a crime to keep these countries down and let their people suffer and die for no good reason. Big banks promote Global Warming (where do you think all the money for this promotion is coming from?) because they will benefit from the Carbon Trading proposed scheme and it will allow big companies that cause real pollution and environmental degradation, most of whom are interlocked with the people at the top of the big banks, to again not have any responsibility for the real problems that would drastically affect their bottom line. Once again they are diverting our attention from the real problems so they do not have to deal with them. It's a scam.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 03:30 AM
link   
RevolutionNow, the OP was about a petition that therefore proves that AGW is wrong and I have posted about the OP, which contained no science.

I actually pointed out the USA alone gives out 20000 PhD's every year and so 9000 when compared to that isn't that large.

As to me finding 9000 PhD's who support AGW I would ask how exactly you would like me to show I can? List them here? I will provide links at the end to give an idea of who might accept AGW.



...But it's the one that the Global Warming Cult always seems to focus on. Forget the science, go for the personal attacks. You assess the science, CO2 has never driven warming and water vapour is far more significant a greenhouse gas. Hey, let's ban water!!


This is the part where I fear you lose some credability. Why call it a cult? Is that because you want to try and pretend that no real scientist could believe in AGW, or that it isn't real science? Then you go on with some specious argument about water vapour being a far more significant greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide as though that proves it then. Nobody has ever suggested that water vapour isnt the largest greenhouse gas so why bring it up? This earth has a natural greenhouse atmosphere that makes it the nice temperature we are now but you don't want to make it any better at keeping the heat in.

Errrmmmm...... Nobody but Al Gore, and the media, made him the pin up of AGW.



The science argues firmly against global warming. And this can be cited in numerous peer-reviewed publications in journals such as Science, Nature etc. I challenge you to debate the science of it, not the people behind it on either side.


This is nice
What sort of statement is "The science"? What science? All of it? Scientists have argued for and against AGW and the vast majority across the world come down in favour of AGW.

One pointer to this is the agrument that some people claim that those who are opposed to AGW have their careers ruined if they come out against it, if AGW were some minority view in science?

If you wish to have a science debate then we can if you like but please put some relevant science up to debate. I would suggest that before you do though you go and read a few journals and see what the majority of papers conclude about climate change. (And I mean respectable journals like nature, science, AGU Journal series or EGU Journals. Unfortunately you may have to pay to access the journals, although the EGU ones may be free)

I will finnish by linking to just a few scientific groups who have all backed AGW. (I know this won't count in your book as PhD's who back AGW but if the majority of the members didn't back it then they couldn't give these statements.)



I give these because they are among the largest groups of "climate change" related scientists in the world. The EGU annual conference alone attracts almost 10000 scientists each year. I am sure you can google them if you want to find out more


[edit on 11-7-2008 by Iggus]



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 06:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Iggus
 


Definition of cult. A group of people who believe in something where there is no basis in fact. The people at the head of the cult have different objectives to those that they manipulate. If you look at Al Gore, the priest of Global Warming, you'll find his Carbon footprint probably exceeds the average person by a factor of a 1000, just look at his mansion, plane trips everywhere etc. Why is millions being poured into it, if the people pouring this money don't expect an ROI?? Think about it.

Why did it change from Global Warming to Climate Change?? Could it have been because of this?

environment.newscientist.com...

news.bbc.co.uk...

If you look at the climate record, you find that climate is constantly changing. In the 60's and 70's it was potential ice age. In 80's and 90's it was potential hothouse. Now it's climate change because it could go either way. Give me a break. Climate changes and always has. It's fear-mongering for control of society.

The organizations you specify allow people to publish on many seperate issues. Nowhere does it say every member of the organization agrees with AGW or any other particular issue for that matter. I'm sure you had some scientists publish on how the Earth was flat once. It does not mean that most believed it, just that it was the dogma at the time. There's big money in propounding AGW, so to say people won't be corrupted by it is ridiculous. So, yes, I do want you to present a countering list.

Try this from one of the websites you mentioned

Variable solar irradiance as a plausible agent for multidecadal variations in the Arctic-wide surface air temperature record of the past 130 years

www.agu.org...

I'd hardly say there was a consensus in this particular organization.

[edit on 11-7-2008 by RevolutionNow]



new topics

top topics
 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join