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.

 

Predictions of "ice free" summer for first time in history completely debunked

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Erasurehead
 


Deny climate change if you will. Say the global climate is going to cool. By all means exercise your right to free speech.

Vast numbers of scientists disagree with your interpretation, as evidenced by the following:

nationalacademies.org...

www.egu.eu... (The EGU annual conference alone attracts more than 10,000 scientists each year)

www.agu.org...

(All courtesy of Iggus)

Readers can choose who to believe.




posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 04:48 PM
link   
I do not deny that the climate is changing. The climate is always changing and has thoughout history even before man existed on this planet.

I do question how much of the climate change is man made. I tend to think it is minimal.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by stikkinikki

I don't understand the contradiction in the patterns matching so closely. Care to explain this in more detail? You can skip the needlepoint if you want. I am really interested.


Sure, the contradiction is that we're supposed to believe that both extremes are blamed on the CO2. Through the 90's, when it Earth was warming, we were all told about how greenhouse gases trap heat inside the planet's atmosphere, making the globe hotter. We were told "as these CO2 levels rise, Earth will get hotter and hotter!" Then, after a couple of record breaking cold winters in various places, "Global Warming" was magically changed to "Global climate change" and we're expected to forget how we were told for over a decade that the CO2 was just going to make Earth hotter and hotter everywhere during every season.

That's the contradiction. According to everything these same scientists swore was the gospell and scientific fact, according to Al Gore, according to Kyoto, etc we can't be experiencing record cold anywhere at anytime because we're supposed to be getting hotter and hotter as the CO2 levels continue to rise!!! I live in a suburb of Seattle in the foothills of the Cascades, we just had basically the coldest summer on record in Seattle. We had a couple of scorcher days (and I do mean a couple) but from the start of summer to today we were double digits below normal and had several days where the high temperature was so low it killed the record lowest high for that date.

We cannot use ice core records as evidence this isn't all naturally cyclic, as the Al Gores would like us to believe, either. The poles of Earth have not always been iced over. The ice core samples basically only cover one brief period in Earth's history, 20 million years if taken at the thickest ice over Antarctica, 2 1/2 million if taken anywhere other than there. Evidence for Earth's first ice age dates to over 2 1/2 Billion years ago and we have evidence of glacial till and ice scour that indicates we've had 4 major ice ages and innumerable glacial periods in that 2 1/2 Billion years. One haracteristic they all shared was that they came to an end as the globe heated up, and then later when she cooled back down they reformed. The people who point to CO2 levels in ice core sampling are missing a huge part of the puzzle: we do not have any records dating before the most recent ice age because all the ice was melted! What melted it? Were the CO2 levels in the atmosphere a factor? Were the other planets in our solar system exhibiting comparable heating cycles as they are today?

There are too many questions and far too few answers for us to just accept man driven climate change as being anything more than a rough, totally unproven, theory at this point.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by pause4thought
 


How many of those scientists were involved with the "we're entering an ice age" propaganda of the 70's just before our most recent warming cycle began? How many will be among the "we're entering an ice age" propaganda machine in another 5 or 10 years when everyone is freezing their butts off as the cycle repeats and we're a few years further into our current cool down?



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 07:06 PM
link   
It Seems most people 'get it'


Al Gore is nothing more then a High-Level Con man... Running his con on a global scale.

He is running a scam to make money...

Thats all...

He is from a Coal family...
Now, hes trying to sell carbon credits...


I got to give it to him... Hes getting rich by tricking morons...

But, to call it an honest living is a BIT of a streach...



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 07:32 PM
link   
See my post here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's all BS in the name of money and control.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by iceofspades

Originally posted by deltaboy
This is a lie!!! It has to be!!! This is a govt. coverup so they could find an excuse to maintain the status quo without having to bow down international demands to reduce carbon emissions. I know it!!!


Even if it is true, there is still significant reason to reduce carbon emissions in the world. Anyone who's been to Los Angeles will agree

ARRGGHHH. I lost my post!

Bottom line: I disagree. Don't confuse pollution and CO2.

CO2 doesn't make chronic diseases and asthma worse. It doesn't degrade quality of life like other pollutants do.

CO2:

* It's colorless. Fill a room with the stuff, you can't see it.
* It's odorless. You can't smell it, even in pure concentrations.

That was the jist of the post...

I agree that we should clean up the pollution, but CO2 isn't in that category. They just want you to think of it that way.
Clearly it's working, and people are forgetting anything they learned in high school.


[edit on 19-8-2008 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 



It's all BS in the name of money and control.


Talk about upside-down! The US government does everything it can to deny the reality of global warming, which is the considered opinion of the thousands upon thousands of scientists represented by the statements at the top of this page (including the world's academies of science).

No, it is those with money and control who poo-poo the reality so they can continue on blindly making mega$ from oil at the cost of the environment. They have their lap-dog ignorance-promoters in here too.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by pause4thought
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 



It's all BS in the name of money and control.


No, it is those with money and control who poo-poo the reality so they can continue on blindly making mega$ from oil at the cost of the environment. They have their lap-dog ignorance-promoters in here too.



That does it! I am going to take on this Global Warming hubbub again. There is too much misinformation out there. pause4thought you are correct. It is sad so many have been duped by psuedoscience. It is 2:26 am and I have to get to sleep but mark my words ATS - you will have a new expert for the boards. Enough is enough!



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by burdman30ott6

Sure, the contradiction is that we're supposed to believe that both extremes are blamed on the CO2. Through the 90's, when it Earth was warming, we were all told about how greenhouse gases trap heat inside the planet's atmosphere, making the globe hotter. We were told "as these CO2 levels rise, Earth will get hotter and hotter!" Then, after a couple of record breaking cold winters in various places, "Global Warming" was magically changed to "Global climate change" and we're expected to forget how we were told for over a decade that the CO2 was just going to make Earth hotter and hotter everywhere during every season.


You've been duped by the media
That's why we tend to refer to Anthropogenic Climate Change nowadays rather than Anthropogenic Global Warming. AGW means the average global temp over a long period of time inceases - but obviously not everywhere every year. But people - either through ignornance of through deliberate misinterpretation - took it mean mean everywhere should be hotter every year and when they found somewhere wasn;t hotter they jumped on it as 'proof' AGW wasn't happening.

As I always point out, it's possible to enter an new ice age and still have AGW happening.

Of course the fact the media and politicians jumped on the CO2 aspect of AGW to the near exclusion of all other factors, and seem to ignore the fact that natural variation still takes place, doesn't help!

Bets bet to to look at the action science, not what non-experts tell you on TV



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Erasurehead
Fact - Global warming is not happening. The earth is cooling down.

"A top observatory that has been measuring sun cycles for over 200 years predicts that global temperatures will drop by two degrees over the next two decades as solar activity grinds to a halt and the planet drastically cools down, potentially heralding the onset of a new ice age.

While the mass media, Al Gore and politicized bodies like the IPCC scaremonger about the perils of global warming and demand the poor and middle class pay CO2 taxes, both hard scientific data and circumstantial evidence points to a clear cooling trend."

Source: www.propagandamatrix.com...

I have also noticed how Al Gore and his gang of scammers have stopped using the term "man made global warming" and replaced it with "man made climate change" since it has been proven that the earth has actually been cooling off for the past 10 years.


propagandamatrix? sounds like a reputable scientific outlet.


Global warming can trigger a dramatic climate change because of the dynamic between heat and the freezing temperature of water. Global warming can feed upon itself through feedback effects wherein warmer temperatures improve conditions to bring about even warmer conditions. Eventually it will top out and the Earth will swing back to a cooling period. Global warming HAS NOT replaced climate change. Global warming is part of climate change. Climate change can be dramatic.

At this stage it would be a blessing to get the climate to cool off two degrees (C or F?) for the next two decades as it would give us a little more time to address a (singular, one of many) driving force of climate change, atmospheric CO2. Atmospheric CO2 is one of the greenhouse gasses that contributes to the warming of the planet.

Anyone watching the Olympics in Bejing? Have you seen the air pollution? That's not from volcanoes or sunspots, it's man made pollution. Chinese pollution such as this travels across the Pacific ocean to the United States. So mans activities DO affect the global environment.

Could we go into a new ice age over the next two decades? Yes. Climate change can be rapid. It works both ways. It is in our best interests to keep any climate change gradual.



[edit on 8/20/08 by stikkinikki]



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by azzllin
Global warming happens if Mankind is present on this Planet or not, one day i promise you the Earth will return to a state of tropical climate in the Northern Hemisphere, just as has happened many many times before, and when that has ended, an ice sheet miles deep will cover the exact same area all the way down to north Africa.

The difference from when it happened the last time and now?

We have greedy Humans determined that they can make a fortune off the population by convincing them it is their fault.

Sure CO2 emissions can and probably will speed the process up, it does not alter the fact that it is Nature who is in control of the whole deal, always has been and always will be.

The Greatest disease this Planet has ever seen is Humans, modern day Mankind will become the shortest living species ever seen in the history of Planet Earth, and be honest do we deserve any better?

Last week when the story broke about the dead Bigfoot, somewhere there where people cleaning their rifles, drinking beer and talking about going into the forests to kill as many as they could, thankfully it looks like a hoax, my point is, we don't seem to be able to control our urge to destroy or kill anything and everything, and no matter how smart or intelligent we tell ourselves we are, if Mother Nature doesn't want something or even us there, she will eventually get rid of us or it.

Very sad but true.

YES! i agree totally. it's egotistical to believe that the earth couldn't wipe out humans or cows or whatever if they were a a huge threat to it's well being. The best scenario for us desstroying the earth before it destroys us IMO is nuclear weapons, i think global warming is false, i think it's a natural process, happened before and will happen again. just my opinion.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 12:23 PM
link   
I'll start believing these glorified weather people at the exact moment when we can predict the exact path of hurricanes and which storm fronts will produce tornadoes.

always said, being a weatherman is the greatest job on the planet - they pay you to guess and make it seem like its educated. but in the end, its still a guess.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 




Guess you can talk about money coming out of your wazoo....

The joys of global warming. While man may have a very small role in it, I really don't think we're the main culprit of any warming that may actually be going on.

Greenland used to be a pretty lush island. Guess Eric the Red and Leif Ericson were tooling around the Atlantic in their SUV boats polluting the atmosphere in order to melt the ice around the area.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrBigDog1974
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 




Guess you can talk about money coming out of your wazoo....

The joys of global warming. While man may have a very small role in it, I really don't think we're the main culprit of any warming that may actually be going on.

Greenland used to be a pretty lush island. Guess Eric the Red and Leif Ericson were tooling around the Atlantic in their SUV boats polluting the atmosphere in order to melt the ice around the area.


Cool! Do you have any evidence that Greenland used to be lush? That runs contrary to what I have heard by a long shot. Maybe you mean there was enough grass in a few areas to start some settlements. I am sure you didn't mean lush like England or did you?



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unnoan
I'll start believing these glorified weather people at the exact moment when we can predict the exact path of hurricanes and which storm fronts will produce tornadoes.

always said, being a weatherman is the greatest job on the planet - they pay you to guess and make it seem like its educated. but in the end, its still a guess.


Weather prediction and climate prediction are 2 very different things

Weather prediction is saying that a train will arrive at a specific time tomorrow and a certain number of people will disembark

Climate prediction is saying that over the next 30 years more (or less) trains will arrive on average each year and that more (or less) people will disembark from them on average over the course of each year.


btw back in Eric the Red's time, Greenland was about as 'lush' as it is today.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 03:57 PM
link   
I think it's hilarious that these "scientific" agencies release articles and studies saying there's a 50/50 chance something could happen.

Do you know how long NOAA officials would be employed if they followed suit when making storm predictions and tracking existing storms?

"We figure a good chance of seeing some hurricanes this year. We think so because we had some last year. But maybe not."

"The storm in the Gulf? Well it might be headed for New Orleans, then again it might not."

"The storm is heading west. But it might turn north. Or continue west. Or turn northwest. Oh yeah, it might turn around, too."



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 06:27 PM
link   



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 06:35 PM
link   
I'm sorry, but how can it be growing 30% per year while we're watching huge chunks of it float by us, and satellite images clearly showing the North West passage opening up?

If it were growing, we wouldn't be currently discussing international traffic using it as a standard waterway, something that couldn't happen UNLESS IT WAS MELTING.

This is a load of bull.

What other lies will they come up with next? Hawaii's frozen solid? lol. Give me a break.


So, the media tells you it's not melting.
Our EYES say otherwise.
Which one do you think is lying?

[edit on 20-8-2008 by johnsky]



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Erasurehead
 


The moral of this story is in the 1st sentence of the headline .....

The word "COULD" says it all. They did NOT say IT WOULD BE, they said it COULD BE !

There is a HUGE difference between the two words and their meanings.




new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join