It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Shocker: 'Global warming' simply no longer happening

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 08:09 PM
reply to post by Annee

that's sweet and all, but how many of our tax dollars have been pissed away on this poor joke? I think trees need a hug every now and then too, but this has been rediculous. He took a freakin oscar!.......rant over...

posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 08:10 PM

Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen

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.


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 now 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.

Of course I have thought about this, have you seriously considered that humans may be in part a factor in climate change? Not that I know that is what is taking place, but like I have said, it is POSSIBLE that we are causing harm, would it not seem reasonable to live in a manner that is not harmful?

I have also seriously thought about the fact that this planet has gone through many stages in history, some cold, some hot some in between. I am not a scientist, I can only go with what I have read on all sides, and what feels right to me.

So, like I have said before, I don't know what is causing it, does that mean I continue polluting? No, it means I live in a way that is healthy.

Truthfully? Even if humans are NOT a factor in climate change, living without the pollutions that we cause in our world, will only end up creating healthier people. So in the end, I see positives for humans, animals, plants and the earth when we move in a direction that takes us from "polluters" to "greeners".


posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 08:22 PM
reply to post by amazed

I have always thought GW was a crock, but there is NO doubt we are screwing up are planet daily. I remember reading about how during the hot part of the Iraq war, they shut down Baghdad for an afternoon for some religious thing, and everyone commented on how clean the air was. If you could stop traffic in a city for a day and have noticably cleaner air, think about if cars ran on thomething that didn't polute. Hydrogen.

posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 08:27 PM

Originally posted by stikkinikki

Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen

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.

I am "entrenched" in my view because unlike 90% of the individuals purporting this garbage (and Politically non-scientific theories) I have actually conducted Study, Research, and Analysis with Climatologists for 12 Years (NOAA, USGS, and Universities). As a matter of fact, I knew the past Director of NOAA, who has now moved on to another Meteorological Group. After his Departure, NOAA began to coincidentally start pushing forth with a Media Campaign of AWG ideology as well. The same exact phenomenon occurred when "The Weather Channel" was taken over by NBC (A Liberal Media Organization, no doubt).

The original theory behind Global Warming was that the ENTIRE Globe was Warming, not simply one Region over Another. The North and South Polar Regions were Warming the Most Dramatically (3%-4%), while the Equatorial Regions had Warmed by 1%. There was NO Proposition of ANY Cooling, ANYWHERE. Heat Waves were to become Normal Climate Patterns over the Entire Planet, Hurricanes were to gain Strength, Oceans to Rise in Temperature (Killing Species of Coral, Plankton, and so forth), Glaciers to ALL melt (From the Himalayas to Greenland, the Andes to the Rockies), the Ice Caps were to all but Disappear, Grasslands were to all turn into Desert, Snow was to Disappear as a Predominant Winter form of Precipitation, and Winters in General, especially within the Continental United States, were to see Warm to Mild Temperatures as a Widespread factor.

Well, when the FACTS began to prove the theories incorrect, the Proponents of such theories began to panic over their flow of Grant Money. To counter such a possibility, they altered the terminology and "expected" outcome behind such, while at the same time certain Politicians began to run on Platforms related towards this matter, and THUS you now have a deeply ingrained bias towards the actual Science.

I could go on with an entire book delving into the realities of this entire AWG "Movement", but I doubt some of you would listen anyways.

If you knew others within the Scientific Community, such as I do, you would witness an unprecedented amount of Frustration and downright Anger over the "Band Wagon Jumping" which is currently going on with this Ill-founded notion (i.e., AWG) . True Research is being completely abandoned in favor of Politics.

[edit on 3-23-2009 by TheAgentNineteen]

posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 08:36 PM

Originally posted by Mason mike
reply to post by amazed

I have always thought GW was a crock, but there is NO doubt we are screwing up are planet daily. I remember reading about how during the hot part of the Iraq war, they shut down Baghdad for an afternoon for some religious thing, and everyone commented on how clean the air was. If you could stop traffic in a city for a day and have noticably cleaner air, think about if cars ran on thomething that didn't polute. Hydrogen.

That right there is REAL Environmentalism, not this garbage of AWG. I completely confer with the idea that we can do much better in terms of taking care of our Environment, such as cleaning up our Litter, reducing Pollution, Watching over Animal Species, and continually increasing Efficiency.

One of my major issues with the AWG Proponents, aside from the lack of Science behind their theory, is that they completely ignore the actions we can take to actually better our Living Standard, and the Quality of the Environment around us. Instead, most of them wish to use the Notion of "Worldwide Disaster" in order to have their views forcefully implemented upon others.

Very soon the "Green Energy" Movement will become far more Powerful than the Oil Industry, and far more Manipulative of Politicians as well.

posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 08:39 PM
Climate change and Kilimanjaro

Some information about mount Kilimanjaro

The big question, therefore, is not whether Kilimanjaro’s glaciers are shrinking, but why – and should we be concerned?

posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 08:53 PM
reply to post by TheAgentNineteen

An interesting take. The Weather Channel is not exactly Scientific American and your tell was blaming the liberal media right off the bat. Which former head of NOAA are you talking about? And about the former head of the Weather Channel are you referring to Colman the tv weatherman?

that dude is a character.

For the record in my schooling from the mid 80's to 2000 I never heard of this quote of yours being a consensus AT ALL.

.....Glaciers to ALL melt (From the Himalayas to Greenland, the Andes to the Rockies), the Ice Caps were to all but Disappear.......

I have problems with a lot of what you have posted in regards to global warming and I have problems with your tirade that this post is in reply to.

Global warming and climate change has always been about the long term trend AND the speeding up of our path to the tipping point where we find ourselves in another ice age.

See, I could type stuff here for another 5 hours citing study after study but I know from experience I will get the same talking points thrown in my face time after time. AGAIN, I NEVER and real science NEVER said that taxing carbon emissions was the way to fix this thing. That is up to the policy makers (AL Gore and others). Real science shows an over all warming trend. We can see that Polar caps ARE indeed melting as are glaciers at different places around the world.

How can that be argued with? I thought you even agreed with it but then in your last post you brought it up again so I readdress it here.

I think the main argument against man made CO2 emissions is the gap in which high temperature is followed by high CO2 emissions. The CO2 is a feedback to the higher temperatures. Higher temperatures mean increased decomposition and more frequent forest fires just for starters.

[edit on 3/23/09 by stikkinikki]

[edit on 3/23/09 by stikkinikki]

posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 09:06 PM
reply to post by amazed

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 not returning to the stone age. Oil damages the planet by removing it from the ground? What? Are you serious? How, how, how?

And the processing does not necessarily produce more pollution than removing the pollutants.

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.

I advocate a better energy source as well. Of course, you do realize that any fuel made from that unmentionable plant would still emit CO2, right? It contains carbon just like every other life form on the planet. As such, it will emit CO2 when burned in oxygen. That's 1st day chemistry!

Do you realize you just advocated producing more CO2 to keep oil from producing too much CO2?

There is only one fuel known to mankind that will combust in our atmosphere without producing CO2... hydrogen. Nothing else. Oil, gas, natural gas, methane, butane, coal, propane, diesel, wood, paper all produce CO2 when they burn. They all contain carbon in their molecular structure. There is one little problem with using hydrogen: it presently uses as much energy to produce as it gives off when burnt, That means you have to use some other kind of energy to produce hydrogen, in just as high amounts as you would use if you used the other energy sources directly (more, actually, since no energy conversion is 100% efficient).

So exactly what do you suggest using for this alternate energy? Hydroelectric? Great idea, except we are running out of rivers. Solar? Sure, if you want your power bill to go up 1000%. Solar electricity is presently extremely expensive. Wind? Nice concept, but exactly where do you think the energy is coming from? The prevailing winds which we know control the weather. As a matter of fact, the idea that the recent Global Warming trend was due in part to the proliferation of commercial windmills has been advanced. Hmmm, I assume that's not a problem with you, since it's politically correct to like wind power.

In short, either wait on a new energy source, find one yourself, or quit trying to demand that something happen because you want it to, laws of physics notwithstanding. It's so easy to say "I demand alternate energy and I demand it now", but it's nothing more than a childish tactic akin to demanding "Mommy I want that!" in a grocery store. The latter actually might accomplish something if the mother is weak enough to comply with a child's demand, but your cries will accomplish absolutely nothing. Physics does not care what you demand.

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.

I think you are confusing CO2 with carbon monoxide (CO). No one I know has a CO2 detector in their homes; as a matter of fact, I don't think I have ever seen one for sale in any store.

Within the atmosphere it [carbon dioxide] is currently at a globally averaged concentration of approximately 387 ppm by volume.

Toxicity and its effects increase with the concentration of CO2, here given in volume percent of CO2 in the air:

* 1%, as can occur in a crowded auditorium with poor ventilation, can cause drowsiness with prolonged exposure.
* At 2% it is mildly narcotic and causes increased blood pressure and pulse rate, and causes reduced hearing.
* At about 5% it causes stimulation of the respiratory centre, dizziness, confusion and difficulty in breathing accompanied by headache and shortness of breath.
* At about 8% it causes headache, sweating, dim vision, tremor and loss of consciousness after exposure for between five and ten minutes.

1% concentration is equal to 10,000 ppm (parts per million) by volume. We are presently at 387 ppm by volume. You will not die of CO2 poisoning.

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.

Good for you! Now, if you're doing your part, and I'm doing my part, and there are surely others who are doing their part, exactly why do you think the world is falling apart?

Although I don't like the cloth bags; if I don't re-use the plastic ones, I will have to buy plastic garbage bags (actually worse, since the plastic grocery bags are UV-intolerant and will break down). So this way I use no more plastic, but I do spend less money on bags.

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.

Referring to earlier in this post, I would say it is you who have assumed much. I have no great love for oil; I simply accept it as a necessary thing until some other form of energy is available (and the Cap & Trade system will not help produce alternate energy; it will do the exact opposite and keep the status quo in place to the exclusion of inventors). this attitude is evident in my long line of posts on this topic.

Based on this, and on the fact that you thought CO2 was a deadly poison that had to be monitored, I would say they have you right where they want you.


edit to add:

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.

May I ask where this is happening?


[edit on 3/23/2009 by TheRedneck]

posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 10:05 PM

Originally posted by jasonjnelson
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.

As much as I'd like to have a bash fest on the guy, I'll restrain myself and say that what you describe for the most part sounds like incredible paranoia. He probably rents out the rooms on both side so noone can spy on his private conversations or strange noises from other activities and wants the lights on and the newspapers delivered so that the rooms have the appearance of being occupied.

Using the SUVs? I don't know, perhaps he just doesn't wish to be recognized by his car or just needs lots of room on business? Maybe he's embarrased to take people around in a Prius? Maybe it's easier to find and transport people to eat when in an SUV?

I've heard other things consistent with your description and Mr. Gore doesn't seem to be a stranger to excess though it seems there could be other reasons for some things.

posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 10:18 PM
It is always interesting when you oppose the opposer to human responsibility of effect on Earth.

How many excuses - - I mean reasons - - they have for not.

posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 10:44 PM
If its now been proven that CO2 is not the cause then it doesn't leave many things it can be but natural. Possibly this could be the number one cause of Climate change.



[edit on 24-3-2009 by paulcottrell84]

posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 11:31 PM
But I was getting used to sun tanning in the back yard

I guess it's back to fabutan

posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 11:42 PM

Originally posted by paulcottrell84
If its now been proven that CO2 is not the cause then it doesn't leave many things it can be but natural. Possibly this could be the number one cause of Climate change.



This was in the wiki entry for your first source:

The Milankovitch theory of climate change is not perfectly worked out

but an interesting link. I don't see how it proves CO2 is not a factor. I'm going to have to imerse myself in this again so I can rattle stuff off without having to look everything up again. I'm always open to new evidence.

posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 01:56 AM
reply to post by TheRedneck

I don't want to return to the stone age either, I don't think it is necessary.

Yes, I am sure that if we used the plant that I was discussing, it would as well produce some pollution. Not as much as oil. It renews the land, it is sustainable, it is itself renewable. Ethanol, made from this is not the ONLY choice, but I believe it is a far better option than what we are using now. Not to mention someone could make it themselves and not have it processed and shipped all over the world. Though I do see it more likely that we would have "local" processing agents. As well as it being a (comparatively) quick and easy fuel change over, so as to keep us "out of the dark ages."

We have many different directions we could go, one you mentioned, another is better technology in the realm of batteries. I am sure that humanity is intelligent enough that we can figure this out. But only if people really want to, and not if we have a majority who refuse to even acknowledge that just the process of removing oil and gas from the earth causes pollution.

Here is an example of how removing oil/gas from the earth can cause pollution. Kudos to my cousin for showing me this.

Ever turned your water in your sink on, and had it catch fire?

A person such as yourself, has the internet ability to do some research on the damage done to the environment through oil and gas drilling. If you really want me to post all the different links that show this I am sure I can do that for you.

Ok, CO2, CO. I apologize, I did "jump the gun" a bit here in not explaining the difference between the two, but both are/can be very very dangerous. As well as I did not expect someone to try and divert the conversation from the subject at hand.

Yes, they do have carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide detectors for the home. They call them "multi gas detectors/monitors/meter".

Carbon Monoxide and Carbon Dioxide

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a colorless, tasteless, odorless, noncombustible gas that is soluble in water. Because CO2 is one and one half times as heavy as air it tends to 'pool' in low areas such as basements and underground areas not subject to air movement. As it 'pools,' it displaces the air that includes oxygen. CO2 does not support combustion; pilot lights on gas appliances will go out.

Because carbon dioxide displaces oxygen, it is a health risk since we need oxygen to live. CO2 is an asphyxiant. It can cause headaches, drowsiness and loss of ability to maintain concentration.

Carbon monoxide (CO) is a non-irritating, colorless, tasteless, odorless gas only partially soluble in water. It is a flammable gas that is somewhat lighter than air. Carbon monoxide is a waste product of incomplete combustion of coal, wood, charcoal, natural gas, fuel oil, kerosene, gasoline, fabrics and plastics. It is the leading cause of poisoning deaths in the United States. Why is carbon monoxide dangerous? Carbon monoxide interferes with the blood's ability to carry oxygen. It combines with the hemoglobin of blood 250 times better than oxygen does, thus denying body tissues a sufficient supply of oxygen.

Symptoms of acute CO poisoning are headaches, dizziness, sleepiness, nausea, vomiting, and collapse. CO poisoning can lead to coma and death.

CO kills you right out ie poisons you, CO2 is an asphyxiant. In either scenario, the end result, well death is death. And YES, even trying to work through this and keep the two apart can be a bit confusing, especially trying to understand all the differences. So NO harm meant here. Hopefully I explained the two a bit better. But I do admit, I still could have gotten the two mixed up, just the way my mind works.

An asphyxiant gas is a non-toxic or minimally toxic gas which dilutes or displaces the oxygen containing atmosphere, leading to death by asphyxiation if breathed long enough.

I can understand the concept of why you choose to reuse your plastic bags. Interestingly enough, plastic, which even I love what all it can do, can also be created from the plant that I was discussing above. Again, removing the need for oil/gas drilling, production etc. and being far more environmentally friendly.

You may ask where I live all you want, but it does not mean I will post it online to people I don't know.

PEACE to you

[edit on 24-3-2009 by amazed]

posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 05:04 AM
Shocker? whats so shocking about it no longer happening when it WASNT EVER HAPPENING IN THE FIRST PLACE!

posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 05:22 AM
All you nutjobs who think this "scientist" is telling the truth, and that global warming was created to keep people under control, are obviously a bunch of idiot monkeys. Do you realize that the people most easily put under control, those who watch Fox News, don't believe in Global Warming?

RIGHT! We're the ones who were brainwashed!

posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 07:16 AM
Global warming has to be one of the most ridiculous statements in all this time. To tax people for carbon emissions is just plain ludicrous.

The fact is, the only crud you hear is on the NEWS, and in the PAPERS. How can you be sure their not in on it themselves and lying to you? If im wrong then what does it matter? Its not likely your power plants or any business are going to be lessening their emissions/profits.

How can ANYONE be certain global warming is even an issue? Ice-ages have come before and will come again. Im quite certain its a cycle, and there was nothing causing emissions back then, so why would suddenly it be caused or accelerated now? Who here can safely say they know everything and are omnipotent and all knowledgeable, and therefor state to us in pure facts that we are in the midst of *drum roll* GLOBAL WARMING.

The only information we have are what people speculate, or 'hear' on the official channels, such as the news, tv or 'Al-gore'.

posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 07:37 AM
I think it's pretty obvious that we're all being taken for a ride as far as 'global warming' and 'carbon' is concerned...

I'm all for being responsible when it comes to the environment - without being in anyway fanatical - but the whole 'cabon taxation' and fining people who refuse to abide by ridiculously complex recycling laws (some people have to use upto 5 different garbage bins in the UK)... well... it's clearly just a ruse to rape the general populous for money money.

I think the climate is changing - it's certainly very obvious here in the UK over the past 10 years. But this could be a regular small fluctuation - 100 year cycle etc etc... It's on secret that over the past 1000 years records show massive climate fluctuations over 100 year periods in the UK.

In the middle ages - it was much much warmer, especially in the summer. And in the Victorian era, much much colder with the rivers regularly frozen over thick enough to skate on.

Personally I'm not worried at this point. Yes we should be more responsible and things like landfill and coal power stations are a worry.

But let's not get to the point where we are unable to live our lives comfortably for fear of 'global warming' - something which we haven't even seen any hard evidence for.

posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 07:41 AM
2008 was very cold in some regions and was the coldest year in the last 10 years, but it was still much warmer than most of the 100 years before.
All reliable temperature datas show that mean temperatures are rising. That doesn't mean that it is warmer everywhere. In some regions, indeed, temperatures are much lower than the average, for many reasons, including the disruption of some ocean streams, like the Gulf Stream, that influences the climate of the east coast of North America from Florida to Newfoundland, and the west coast of Europe.
Where I live, in the extreme south of Brazil, above 3.000 feet from sea level, about 15 years ago, in winter, temperatures rarely were above 20ºC and there were more than 15 mornig frosts a year. In the last 10 years, even in winter, temperatures often surpass 25ºC, reaching 30º sometimes. Morning frosts, even in higher regions, are very rare nowadays.

posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 07:44 AM
Also - in response to an earlier post...

I think oil and gas drilling - and many other things such as strip mining, landfill, heavy industry, our use of petro-chemicals in plastics and pharmaceutical production etc - are all things we should be concerned about, and very much things our governments and representatives should be working hard to regulate and monitor.

That said - in all these areas it is huge companies and irresponsible and often illegal policy within them that causes the problems. Thus it should be they who are taxed into submission, not the guy on the street being charged to use a plastic bag at wall mart, or having to pay a fine because they put the wrong kind of plastic into the wrong recycling box.

Screwing up the planet by digging it up and pouring toxic waste back into it isn't the same as 'global warming'.

Supporting action on one doesn't mean you accept the myth of the other.

People were protesting in front of landfills and chemical plants long before Al Gore and his gang decided the earth was gonna explode.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in