Shocker: 'Global warming' simply no longer happening

Originally posted by Annee
If anyone has actually been following this - - its about climate change - - and a new Ice Age.

It became "Climate Change" to ensure that no matter what happens, the alarmism always has something to point to. Only "Climate Stasis" could possibly be the incorrect assessment even though "Climate Change" surreptitously implies that the climate doesn't change and all is caused by humans (note that this is the built-in, unconscious suggestion).

Global Warming has never been the right descriptive.

Still I seem to recall it being the descriptive (following Global Cooling). Per above, advocates wanted to ensure they were never wrong.

Since Al Gore gets the average "Joe" to pay attention to how they affect the environment - - I support him 100%.

I do not and I do not believe he is the cause of anyone paying attention. I do not support politicalization of something not political. I do not support the constant seeking of problems and ignoring things that have improved substantially (such as water quality in the Great Lakes where the difference is quite visible from a couple decades back).

I am one that is concerned with air and water quality, recycling and such. I can support the idea that people should be enlightened and made aware of their impacts but I want truth so that investments can be made in areas that actually matter to the planet's health, not political B.S. (manbearpig)

Originally posted by BorgHoffen

Originally posted by Annee
We have millions of years of science data?
I didn't know that.

Didn't you?
Oh well now you do yeh?

We learn something new everyday.
You know the fossilized remains and ice core samples they take?
That show them what happened 50,000 years ago and 5 million years ago?
Oh no let me guess, lets discount those scientific findings, and believe Al Gore right?

"1500 years ago, everybody "knew" that the earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody "knew" that the earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago, you "knew" that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll "know" tomorrow."

Science? You mean interpretations based on current knowledge.

Originally posted by EnlightenUp

I do not and I do not believe he is the cause of anyone paying attention.

I am anyone.

A "dog" just got run over by a car. Let's discuss whether it makes a difference if its a Cadillac or a Toyota.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by BorgHoffen

Originally posted by Annee
We have millions of years of science data?
I didn't know that.

Didn't you?
Oh well now you do yeh?

We learn something new everyday.
You know the fossilized remains and ice core samples they take?
That show them what happened 50,000 years ago and 5 million years ago?
Oh no let me guess, lets discount those scientific findings, and believe Al Gore right?

"1500 years ago, everybody "knew" that the earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody "knew" that the earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago, you "knew" that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll "know" tomorrow."

Science? You mean interpretations based on current knowledge.

so one science is reliable (I mean the "science" behind the global warming and another is interpretation based on current knowledge?
I would say that you should think it over once again

Originally posted by Annee
"1500 years ago, everybody "knew" that the earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody "knew" that the earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago, you "knew" that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll "know" tomorrow."
Science? You mean interpretations based on current knowledge.

You're a word twister lady.
I am not going to argue with word twisters.
When did I say humans were alone on this planet?
500 years ago, did we have microprocessors or advanced quantum physics?
The science behind ice core analysis, and fossil dating, is not an interpretation.

Just to fan the flames a little, I know somethuing about ol' Al Gore that I can share with you all...

When he stayed at the hotel I used to work at, (layed off a month ago), there were three things that stood out to me...

-He rented three rooms, all connected in a suite. (a cottage) He left the lights on in the two he wasn't using, ALL NIGHT.

-He had all major papers delivered to all three rooms, and complained when one night I personally just delivered papers to his room. He said that someone might want to use them. (they were never opened, and returned the next morning when I replaced them with new ones)

-He parked a Prius with valet, and then had private SUV's pick him up to take him every where. ( to that end, on his last day, I left a little "co2" in the car for him to take with him, hee hee...)

Just a thought for all you who continue to worship this opportunist.

Gore is a greedy pig.

Rothschilds are greedy pigs.

Only dumb people support carbond tax. Taxing carbon does absolutely nothing other than raking in the cash. I mean.. just look who's behind the entire scheme!

Sure something needs to be done but taxing carbon aint it. Regulating emissions and making sure every business/corporation/company/farmer/whatever does everything necessary to limit emissions. Set some standards and enforce it.

Yes to regulating and charging fines to those whom dont comply.

No to carbon tax.

[edit on 23-3-2009 by disfugured]

Originally posted by Mysterium918
And all it took was for Bush to leave office... At least he took his environmental catastrophes with him on the way out... I wonder how things are at the old Texas ranch?

That's the only place on Earth where there's a hole in the Ozone layer - right above his Crawford ranch. And Al Gore still can't explain why. Meanwhile, Michael Moore is arguing with Dan Quayle over whether french fries come from the "potato" or the "potatoe". Moore says he'll eat both and sort it out later.

I agree that the source article is bunk. I have yet to see authenticated evidence that all the planets in our solar system are warming up. It should be all of them shouldn't it? Except Neptune I think that orbit goes outside of Pluto's for awhile.

It is obvious TO ME that humans are contributing to climate changes.
I don't worship Gore, Michael Moore or Obama.

I don't think favoring a carbon tax is a prerequisite of scientific understanding of our societies contribution to atmospheric CO2.

I don't favor a carbon tax, I favor changing our energy sources and now.

-
PS: Obama is a natural born citizen of the USA.

reply to post by TheRedneck


Actually I really don't have fear over the issue, more disgust over peoples reactions.

So, do you advocate that we continue using a product (oil/gas), that just by the process of removing it from the earth, is damaging? Not to mention spills, processing etc? So, you want to continue using oil/gas and just "clean it up" by "processing" it even further? Which by the way CAUSES more pollution.

I advocate coming up with a fuel that is environmentally friendly. I know of a plant that we could use, just for this that is "illegal". Ford designed his vehicle to run on it, and even parts of the vehicle was built with it. The "PLASTIC" built from this plant was stronger than steel by ten times. But NOOO , we can't have that and now I cannot even mention it in this thread because on ATS I would be breaking rules.

If it was legal for me to use this plant, I could grow it myself, and make my OWN fuels to heat my home with and drive my vehicles with. Talk about control, but you want to keep using oil and giving Exxon your money.

C02 can kill people, why do you think detectors are a good idea for people to have in their homes? For SAFETY, too much of it is damaging.

Good for you on planting your trees, and I am happy that you are able to allow so much land to be undisturbed. I have about five trees in my little part of the world that I have planted. I do what I can in my little part of the world, which includes living as green as possible. Recycling, growing as much as possible of my own organic NON gmo foods, working towards a neighborhood organic garden, not using plastics like it's an unending healthy resource. I have cloth grocery bags I use as well as not using those little plastic bags in the stores to put my veges and fruits in, I don't care how many times the checker glares at me.

Yes, like most people I use motorized transportation, do you? Yes, I can watch the deer and even the bear sometimes in my yard, which I have pictures of. I can't generally hear cougars, but I have heard mountain lions, wolves, and elk, and deer, and and and I DO like tv nature shows.

I have a compost bin as well as a large compost area in my yard.

I do not have enough land to shovel my own animals manure, but I go to my local areas and shovel manure and bring it to my ORGANIC GARDEN.

I do not use poisons in my yard, my grass clippings? They get put in my compost along with anything that is not a meat or milk product.

I even LIKE to buy foods grown LOCAL instead of foods that have been shipped from who knows where.

I even like to get old newspapers from my local school district to use in my garden and compost instead of them just throwing them into the local landfill.

Sigh, no processed fertilizer, neem oil, fish and seaweed and many other items are far far better.

Wellll, I would say that if you look at my profile, and my postings, you would find that YES YES YES my family and I can walk into our backyard and pick ORGANIC NON gmo foods to eat.

Can we say "you make assumptions much?" Thanks for that.

Keep on thinking that gas and oil is the way to go, they have you right where they want you.

Peace

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by EnlightenUp

I do not and I do not believe he is the cause of anyone paying attention.

I am anyone.

A "dog" just got run over by a car. Let's discuss whether it makes a difference if its a Cadillac or a Toyota.

A person just got cancer and a cold. Just slother him with billions and trillions in Vic's Vapo Rub and don't worry about the cancer.

[edit on 3/23/2009 by EnlightenUp]

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
BTW, I am posting this with over a foot of snow outside, in the northwest U.S., and with more snow falling as we speak. I can't even see my truck out there anymore.

We are in a drought and have been for years as well as it's far warmer than it was 20 or even 30 years ago. Our trees are dying because it has been too warm. We are not getting the snow like we should be, almost none at all. Usually we have snow on our mountains all year long. Not so for the past many years.

We are loosing much of our forest areas that took centuries to grow, because it has been to warm and too dry for them.

I could go on and on as to what is happening in my part of the world, but I don't really think people would care one way or the other just as long as they can keep living like nothing they do can make a difference one way or the other.

Glad to hear you are getting a lot of moisture.

Peace

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Do you support him also even when in fact he still uses two lincoln limousines and an SUV, which always are running their ACs in summers, for convoys everywhere he goes?

I support people that make people think responsibly - Period!

So again, based on the statement you just made, you can't possibly still be supporting Gore - period!

By Gore's own statements and actions he has shown himself to be a fraud and a hypocrite.

Originally posted by Venit
First off as has already been said, the source is hardly reliable. Secondly, 'Global warming' doesn't mean temperatures will go up everywhere, it's an average rise and will/is causing greater unpredictability in weather patterns.

I have hardly heard of a more idiotic attempt at a justification before (NOT calling you an idiot, just the explanation which is currently floating around everywhere). If the theory is entitled "Global Warming", then what is so difficult to understand about the intended hypothesis behind this term? If Warming is supposed to be Global, then it is Global, you cannot cherry pick which locations Will Warm, and Which will Cool, and still call it Global in Nature.

Regional Climates DO vary, it is true all the time, and what you are referring to is a completely stupid explanation being put forth by the Pseudo-Scientists pushing this absurd and highly debatable "theory".

I urge you to think about the aforementioned for a moment, outside the realm of Environmentalism and Politics, and realize just how absurd the Justifications have become as these AWG "Experts" keep fumbling over their own feet, while they continuously attempt to reshape their theory to make it realign with the FACTS. This is not Science, it is simple what many call "Politics Over Principle".

All one has to do is look at the history of the earth to realize that climate change is inevitable. And I do believe that an new ice age is imminent. I just hope I'm dead before it happens, because I hate the cold.

reply to post by TheAgentNineteen


Uhh, maybe I am missing something, but yeah, it's called global warming - as in, the average temperature of the GLOBE is warming. That would be the theory.


[edit on 3/23/2009 by Irish M1ck]

Just looking back over, and noticed that I did not say anything about my stance on taxing "polluters". I am of two thought on this, on the one hand I do not agree with taxing people even more, on the other hand I do agree that businesses who refuse to follow a healthy environment ideology SHOULD be "punished" in some form or other.

Honestly I just don't see where taxes are going to fix the situation and feel that again we have an area that just needs more study and more education of the public. That's the positive of living in this day, we have many very intelligent people who have the ability to communicate across the world in an instant and share information. To me, in the long run this can only end up being positive for humans, animals, plants and in general the planet that sustains us.

It's also an area I see where people are allowing this to divide them. Unfortunately I feel these days, almost everywhere I turn people are becoming more and more divided and hateful, instead of standing together.

It's very sad to me.

Peace

Originally posted by amazed
We are in a drought and have been for years as well as it's far warmer than it was 20 or even 30 years ago. Our trees are dying because it has been too warm. We are not getting the snow like we should be, almost none at all. Usually we have snow on our mountains all year long. Not so for the past many years.

We are loosing much of our forest areas that took centuries to grow, because it has been to warm and too dry for them.

I could go on and on as to what is happening in my part of the world, but I don't really think people would care one way or the other just as long as they can keep living like nothing they do can make a difference one way or the other.

Glad to hear you are getting a lot of moisture.

Peace

Let me propose a theory for you. Have you ever considered the possibility that the "Warming" you have experienced, is actually a RESULT of the Drought, and not the cause for it? Moisture (specifically Condensation/Rainfall/Snowfall) is the Earth's major Regulatory system in regards to Temperatures and Climate.

The Scientific Community still does NOT know the Natural causes behind Condensation Pattern shifts/cycles, and as such, they have absolutely no knowledge which would allow them to even factor in Human impact. That is the truth, and I tell it to you with the upmost of confidence.

Because of all of this AWG bunk, too many Scientists have begun to completely forgo the necessary combining of studies in order to understand the Natural Drive behind Global Climate Patterns, and they have instead copped out for a much simpler, less refined, and totally incompetent theory which involves no such Research, Study, or Analysis. In other words, the AWG Theory lessens the Workload of Pseudo-Scientists, while Increasing their Potential Profit.

[edit on 3-23-2009 by TheAgentNineteen]

Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen

Originally posted by Venit
First off as has already been said, the source is hardly reliable. Secondly, 'Global warming' doesn't mean temperatures will go up everywhere, it's an average rise and will/is causing greater unpredictability in weather patterns.

I have hardly heard of a more idiotic attempt at a justification before (NOT calling you an idiot, just the explanation which is currently floating around everywhere). If the theory is entitled "Global Warming", then what is so difficult to understand about the intended hypothesis behind this term? If Warming is supposed to be Global, then it is Global, you cannot cherry pick which locations Will Warm, and Which will Cool, and still call it Global in Nature.

Regional Climates DO vary, it is true all the time, and what you are referring to is a completely stupid explanation being put forth by the Pseudo-Scientists pushing this absurd and highly debatable "theory".

I urge you to think about the aforementioned for a moment, outside the realm of Environmentalism and Politics, and realize just how absurd the Justifications have become as these AWG "Experts" keep fumbling over their own feet, while they continuously attempt to reshape their theory to make it realign with the FACTS. This is not Science, it is simple what many call "Politics Over Principle".

This is why I do not participate in these threads with any regularity. The Gulf in the understanding of basic scientific principles is too big to hope to explain to a person already entrenched in their view. Global warming refers to average temperatures world wide as a whole. That is not cherry picking, it is exactly what it describes. Global warming is part of climate change just as bruising is a part of getting hurt.

Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen

The Scientific Community still does NOT know the Natural causes behind Condensation Pattern shifts/cycles, and as such, they have absolutely no knowledge which would allow them to even factor in Human impact. That is the truth, and I tell it to you with the upmost of confidence.

I would be interested in hearing what gives you the utmost confidence in your claim that the scientific community does not know the natural causes behind the "condensation" patterns shifting.

El Nino and La Nina spring to mind....



[edit on 3/23/09 by stikkinikki]