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.

 

Shocker: 'Global warming' simply no longer happening

page: 5
31
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 08:10 AM
link   
Your quote:
"I feel that it does not matter if we are causing "climate change" or not. It ONLY makes good since to take care of the planet that takes care of us."


So let me get this straight...and on the record for all to see...especially since there are multiple comments just like this throughout this thread.

It doesn't matter if we were being lied to the whole time, by Gore and his kind...so long as your liberal, "we hate ourselves" agenda is satisfied???

Did I get that right???




posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 08:20 AM
link   
I can see by the attitudes expressed on this board that there is no hope for mankind (or the planet). Folks will just continue to believe that the planet is just a disposable diaper or commodity that we can do with as we want and there will be no "man made" consequences. Really, just how dumb (or uncaring?) can you folks get around here??

You just go ahead and continue to follow your leader Rush and trash the world's best peer reviewed scientists - as the ice caps keep melting and the seas keep rising around your wise asses. Beam me out Scotty.


PS: Oh and BTW, should you ever get some terrible medical condition, be sure to tell your specialist that you also know more than him!



[edit on 24-3-2009 by whatsup]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 08:24 AM
link   
I just love how people automatically jump to the conclusion that just because you have a differing opinion on climate change you are going to destroy the planet by "throwing your trash in the backyard". It has to be one extreme or another. I think what a majority of us are saying is there is not enough evidence to support man-made co2 causes of climate change so why jump on that boat just because the media tells you so. Do some friggin research on where each bit of info is coming from and think about who has to really gain from it. Their idea of what they want guarantee has nothing but fascism in mind



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 08:35 AM
link   

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

Do you support his carbon credit scam as well??


Originally posted by grey580
I blame Man Bear Pig.

Someone's GOTTA tell me .. what' this Man Bear Pig thing?



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by dtice
I just love how people automatically jump to the conclusion that just because you have a differing opinion on climate change you are going to destroy the planet by "throwing your trash in the backyard".


I completely understand, and agree with your point. But that is what happens when some overweight, ex-big mouth points his finger in people's faces and says "we are all going to die and its YOUR fault". And then gets a Nobel prize for saying it. Ohhh...and lets not forget..."If you don't believe me...you are stupid".

Its all in the presentation.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatsup
I can see by the attitudes expressed on this board that there is no hope for mankind (or the planet).

Understanding the cycles of climate change and understanding that the ENTIRE SOLAR SYSTEM is warming does not equate into people not caring about curbing their trash output.


should you ever get some terrible medical condition, be sure to tell your specialist that you also know more than him!

I have a few of those 'terrible medical conditions' .. as well as a few pain in the backend medical conditions. And yes ... sometimes we lay people know more then the medical people. It's happened to me on more than one occassion that I understood cardiac events and drug interactions and proper blood pressure readings better then the medical workers in the hospitals/clinics.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

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

Do you support his carbon credit scam as well??


Originally posted by grey580
I blame Man Bear Pig.

Someone's GOTTA tell me .. what' this Man Bear Pig thing?


www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

www.youtube.com...



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by whatsup
 


Open your eyes to the deception that is global warming caused by man. CO2 makes up about .04% of the entire atmosphere even at its highest level. How can anyone believe a gas that makes up .04% of the atmosphere is having a dramatic effect on the environment. The earth has warmed and cooled in cycles since its existence and will continue to do so. This scam is just another excuse to tax us to death. We should not fall for the carbon tax, cap and trade scams.

I am all for preserving the environment. We should recycle, use green fuels and all of that simply because it makes our world a better place to live.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by czacza1
 


Here's one of the reasons for the coming ice age...

Vanishing Sunspot Mystery Has Scientists Worried! The Beginning Of The Ice Age?

Sunspots are dark, cool regions with intense magnetic fields or magnetic loops bursting out from the Sun's interior that inhibit convection, forming areas of reduced surface temperature. Visible from Earth even without a telescope sunspots have temperatures of roughly 4,000–4,500 K. However, as the temperatures of the surrounding area are approx 5,800 K, these become clearly visible as dark spots or sunspots.


Sunspot in comparison with the size of the Earth
Courtesy: STEREO


Sunspots, some as large as 80,000 km in diameter, typically move across the surface of the sun, contracting and expanding as they go. Over the past decade some researchers say they've found puzzling correlations between changes in the sun's output and weather and climate patterns on Earth.


Now they (Sunspots) are all gone. Not even solar physicists know why it’s happening and what this odd solar silence might be indicating for our future. The last time this happened was 400 years ago -- and it signaled a solar event known as a "Maunder Minimum," along with the start of what we now call the "Little Ice Age."


Although periods of inactivity are normal for the sun, this current period has gone on much longer than usual and scientists are starting to worry.


"It continues to be dead," said Saku Tsuneta with the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, program manager for the Hinode solar mission, noting that it is at least a little bit worrisome for scientists. In the past, they observed that the sun once went 50 years without producing sunspots. That period coincided with a little ice age on Earth that lasted from 1650 to 1700. Coincidence? Some scientists say it was, but many worry that it wasn’t.


Global Warming Or The Coming Ice Age?

According to Geophysicist Phil Chapman, pictures from SOHO show that there is no sunspot activity on the sun at present. He also noted that the world cooled quickly between January last year and January this year, by about 0.7C! He also cautioned that another mini Ice Age could come without warning.


From the film, ‘The Day After Tomorrow’


Now this 11-year low in Sunspot activity has raised fears among a small but growing number of scientists that rather than getting warmer, the Earth could possibly be about to return to another cooling period. The idea is especially intriguing considering that most of the world is in preparation for global warming.

Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences believes that a lack of sunspots does indicate a coming cooling period based on certain past trends and early records. In fact, he calls manmade climate change "a drop in the bucket" compared to the fierce and abrupt cold that can potentially be brought on by inactive solar phases.


So what of ‘Global Warming’? Do scientists have to revisit their predictions and nightmare scenarios painted by them of retreating glaciers and rising sea levels drowning out coastal cities etc? Or is global warming a conspiracy? Or is it that we just don’t know what the heck is happening and imagining devastating scenarios based on inaccurate climate models that we know little or nothing about? Or are we now witnessing the end of a global warming period and the beginning of another ice age?

Time will tell. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see what the future holds.


Refs:
www.dailygalaxy.com...
www.csmonitor.com...
solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov...
www.guardian.co.uk...



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


Starred for being another excellent post by mikesingh. Excellent data and research that will hopefully get some others to stop and re-evaluate their position.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 09:29 AM
link   
I think it would be extraordinarily hard to kill the planet through global warming. But that doesn't mean we can't make it a miserable place to live. The planet looks pretty bad right now if you know where to look, but the mere fact that so many people take the issue seriously is a very good thing.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

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.


That is called Climate Change, which is natural, and not Global Warming.
[edit on 23-3-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

"Climate change" is quite literally a change in the climate, irrespective of whether that change is warmer , colder, wetter, drier, natural or man-made. A dictionary is your friend here.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
The claim surrounding Global Warming is that atmospheric CO2 has been protrayed as being more important than the Sun, and all other natural factors, yet we know for a fact this is not true.
[edit on 23-3-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

That's a new skeptics twist........but wrong. No GW folks have ever said CO2 is more important than the sun after all the sun is the main source of heat DUH!!. It's how that heat is dissipated that results in warming or not. It is at that point that the change in the retention of the heat as been attributed to an increase in CO2 due to man made burning of fossil fuels which can be identified by the ratios of C12 and C14 in the CO2. In addition we can also assess how radiation passes through each layer of the atmosphere which affects that layers temperature and thus determine the transfer of heat in both directions. The only explanation for the difference in the change of each layer of the atmosphere is a lowering of the emissive radiation FROM the earth. But hey let's not let more technical explanations (which the press don't understand) get in the way of denial shall we. So ignore what I've said...sorry deny what I've said.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Computer models can be rigged to show whatever anyone wishes to.
[edit on 23-3-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

True for both sides. But models are constantly refined and re-run against history that's what makes them MORE accurate predictors as time goes by. those predictions are constantly being revised and NEVER to a cooling climate model but ALWAYS to a more rapidly warming model.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Computer models are not evidence, and in the past Earth has had more atmospheric CO2 than now yet, there were no massive die-offs in land, or the oceans, unless there were other cataclismic events which also caused greenhouse gases to be released.
[edit on 23-3-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Right OK other readers. IN order to understand the past and the interpretations of that data you would have to read the analysis which is far too long to relate here. Needless to say once you thoroughly read the original unedited versions then the above comment is, how do I put this kindly : not entirely accurate.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   
First off ...Truth is that we (human beings) will never "kill" the planet. Us however...Human beings are relatively fragile..vulnerable to climatic changes, food shortages, diseases, viruses, all of those "cides" that come from less land mass/rising oceans, more severe weather, less productive farm land/less food....Homocide, Genocide Ethnocide, Democide, Fratricide, Politicide etc.

The earth will long outlive us ...The Global Warming debate is about saving Humans...not the planet.

As George Carlin used to say...

..there is nothing wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are f*&^$d. The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. Been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We've been here, what? A hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? And we've only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we're a threat? That somehow we're gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that's just a-floatin' around the sun?

The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles; hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors; worlwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages... And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet... the planet... the planet isn't going anywhere. WE ARE!

We're going away. Pack your s*&^, folks. We're going away. And we won't leave much of a trace, either. Thank God for that. Maybe a little styrofoam. Maybe. A little styrofoam. The planet will be here and we'll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet will shake us off like a bad case of fleas. A surface nuisance.



[edit on 24-3-2009 by maybereal11]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   
So now we must talk pay-back of all the years they have lied and told us 'we' are the cause of this, with intrest...

Any one of you know how much we are talking ??
Should be quite a bundle of cash... Another stimulus ???

Or are we heading for ice-aGe ???



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


I agree with you . Our last 2 winters indicate more of a new “Ice Age” than Global warming.

It’s throughout the entire Country. I haven’t heard any recent news about the polar ice caps breaking up and melting lately. Has anyone heard news on that?

Our globe simply goes though weather stages, throughout history and before they were able to keep records.

Maybe all those scientists using drills and radar are causing the ice shelves to fall in to the ocean. I think they should leave them alone.


[edit on 24-3-2009 by wonderworld]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by czacza1

Shocker: 'Global warming' simply no longer happening


www.worldnetdaily.com


Thanks OP for posting this...Excellent study of PROPAGANDA in the global warming...or more accurate.."global weirding" debate.

Lets start with WNDs article and "Sources"

From the WND article...

I just picked one "source" where apparently all the study was explaining was that El Nino..currents etc. would effect short term predictions in temperature, but that long term warming predictions still were accurate...but WND said what again? Global warming reversing itself???



Two more studies – one by the Leibniz Institute of Marine Science and the Max Planck Institute of Meteorology in Germany and another by the University of Wisconsin – predict a slowing, or even a reversal of warming, for at least the next 10 to 20 years.


From the actual Leibniz Study...
www.ifm-geomar.de...


in order to predict short-term developments over the next decade, models need additional information on natural climate variations, in particular associated with ocean currents. Lack of sufficient data has hampered such predictions in the past. Scientists at IFM-GEOMAR and from the MPI for Meteorology have developed a method to derive ocean currents from measurements of sea surface temperature (SST). The latter are available in good quality and global coverage at least for the past 50 years. With this additional information, natural decadal climate variations, which are superimposed on the long-term anthropogenic warming trend, can be predicted. The improved predictions suggest that global warming will weaken slightly during the following 10 years.

Just to make things clear: we are not stating that anthropogenic climate change won’t be as bad as previously thought”, explains Prof. Mojib Latif from IFM-GEOMAR. “What we are saying is that on top of the warming trend there is a long-periodic oscillation that will probably lead to a to a lower temperature increase than we would expect from the current trend during the next years”, adds Latif. “That is like driving from the coast to a mountainous area and crossing some hills and valleys before you reach the top”, explains Dr. Johann Jungclaus from the MPI for Meteorology. “In some years trends of both phenomena, the anthropogenic climate change and the natural decadal variation will add leading to a much stronger temperature rise.”


SO...BS on the Leibniz Study...they actually contradict WND's story not support it.

What about the other source WND stated...Max Planck Institute of Meteorology in Germany ?

Again, that was a study discussing El Nino...short term effects of ocean currents and again that study acknowledges Global Warming...



This suggests that El Niño-like events will occur much more frequently in the future if the global output of greenhouse gases such as CO2 is not drastically reduced. An increase in the amount of inter-annual variability is also seen with the long-term warming trend in the east Pacific; this is mainly expressed in the cold events (La Niñas) becoming stronger, as can clearly be seen in Figure 8.


www.mpimet.mpg.de... .html


[edit on 24-3-2009 by maybereal11]

[edit on 24-3-2009 by maybereal11]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 10:19 AM
link   
There never was any truth to the "Global Warming" scare.

The Earth's temperature is totally dependent upon the sun and its output. If the sun's output increases slightly then we get warmer, if the sun's output decreases then we get cooler.

We are entering a period of low sunspot activity, which means a cooler sun. So, we can expect a cooler Earth. This is why we have had a particularly cold winter.

These periods of minimum sunspot activity usually last about 12 years and this one promises to be particularly long.

Within a few years you will be longing for the good old days, when we thought that the Earth was getting warmer.

I am thinking about putting a bumper sticker on my car that reads, "Global Warming? I'm for it!"



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Great post Mike Singh - - I be starring you too.

Despite any impression I've given from my previous posts - I have been following this for a long time - and your post is the most accurate and current information I am aware of.

I sill support Awareness - - - right - wrong - or somewhere in between - - is still Awareness.

As always - follow up with open minded research - - not research to prove right or wrong.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Blizzard shuts down parts of Wyoming, South Dakota


CHEYENNE, Wyo. (AP) - A blizzard shut down major highways Monday in Wyoming and South Dakota, and meteorologists said one mountainous area might get as much as 40 inches of snow.

Mount Rushmore National Memorial closed because of the icy, blinding weather in South Dakota's rugged Black Hills. Temperature plummeted as the storm moved eastward and wind gusted to more than 60 mph.


apnews.myway.com...



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Continued...LETS FOLLOW THE MONEY BEHIND THIS "SCIENCE"

I love unwrapping Propaganda pieces...

From the WND OP article "Global Warming ...no longer happening"



Climatologist Joe D’Aleo of the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, says new data "show that in five of the last seven decades since World War II, including this one, global temperatures have cooled while carbon dioxide has continued to rise."


International Climate and Envirornmental Change Assesment Project??

Sounds legit right???

www.sourcewatch.org...


ICECAP, which is the acronym for the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, promotes the views of global warming skeptics. The website claims to be "the portal to all things climate for elected officials and staffers, journalists, scientists, educators and the public.





The Web site domain name for ICECAP was registered on October 20, 2006 by Joseph D'Aleo, who is listed among the personnel of the Science and Public Policy Institute, another organization that promotes the views of global warming skeptics that is backed by the Frontiers of Freedom[2].


Okay...Hmm Science and Public Policy Institute?
AND Frontiers of Freedom?



This article is part of the Climate change portal on SourceWatch.
The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) is a global warming skeptics group which appears to primarily be the work of Robert Ferguson, its President.
(It is worth noting that in the late 1990's, George Carlo founded a group known as the "Science and Public Policy Institute" to work on issues such as electro-magnetic radiation and health issues. Approximately eight years later Ferguson founded his group with the identical name, oblivious to the existing of Carlo's group. Ferguson states that after registering his organization in Virginia he discovered that Carlo's group existed but by then his group had created the website and printed their stationery).[1]

The website of Ferguson's SPPI draws heavily on papers written by Christopher Monckton.

Prior to founding SPPI in approximately mid-2007, Ferguson was the Executive Director of the Center for Science and Public Policy (CSPP), a project of the corporate-funded group, the Frontiers of Freedom Institute.



Frontiers of Freedom??? SPPI???? WHere does their Money come from???

www.sourcewatch.org...



Funding
Frontiers of Freedom receives money of tobacco and oil companies, including Philip Morris Cos, ExxonMobil and RJ Reynolds Tobacco.

[edit]Exxon Funding
According to a 2003 New York Times report, "Frontiers of Freedom, which has about a $700,000 annual budget, received $230,000 from Exxon in 2002, up from $40,000 in 2001, according to Exxon documents. George Landrith, President of FoF told the New York Times "They've determined that we are effective at what we do" and that Exxon essentially took the attitude, "We like to make it possible to do more of that".[1]

Funding from Exxon includes:

2002: $100,000 for the "Center for Sound Science and Public Policy" (sic), $97,000 for "Global Climate Change Outreach Activities", and a further $35,000 for "Global Climate Change Science Projects";[2]
2003: $95,000 for "Global Climate Change Outreach" and a further $50,000 for "Project Support - Sound Science Center";[3]
2004: $50,000 for "Climate Change Efforts", $90,000 for "Global Climate Change Outreach", $40,000 as "Project Support - Climate Change" and a further $70,000 for "Project Support- Science Center & Climate Change";[4]
2005: $50,000 for the "Annual Gala and General Operating Support" and a further $90,000 for "General Operating Support"[5];
2006: $90,000 for "General Operating Support" and a further $90,000 for the "Science & Policy Center"[6]; and
2007: $90,000 for "energy literacy".[7]
[edit]Foundation Funding
Media Transparency reports that FoF has also received some $580,450 in 25 grants between 1996 and 2005 from the following five conservative foundations:[8]

Earhart Foundation
John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
Sarah Scaife Foundation
Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation
Carthage Foundation
[edit]Frontiers of Freedom and Tobacco
In a 1996 memo, Jeff Taylor of Frontiers of Freedom writes to Alexander Spears, of the Lorillard Tobacco Company to solicit funding. Taylor describes the activities in which Frontiers of Freedom engaged to attack the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's efforts to regulate the tobacco industry. The memo also shows how Frontiers managed to generate a clamor among Congressmembers seeking the praise from Fof, a relatively new group. Wallop writes,

One sure gauge of our growth took place recently when we presented 15 members of Congress with our 'Defender of Freedom' award. When we returned to the office, we had calls from a handful of other Members asking why they had not been recognized by Frontiers.[1]
One of the "Achievements" Frontiers lists for 1996 was Wallop's guest-hosting of the Armstrong Williams talk show. Armstrong Williams was recently revealed to have accepted $240,000 in taxpayer funds from the George W. Bush administration to comment positively on his show about Bush's "No Child Left Behind" education act.

A USA Today article about the scandal can be seen at www.usatoday.com...

Other policy topics on which Frontiers of Freedom was active include privatizing Social Security, privacy and anti-terrorism legislation (and, ironically, this was all back in 1996).




new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join